IRC log of xproc on 2008-12-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:34:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:34:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/11-xproc-irc
15:34:24 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be xproc
15:34:24 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 26 minutes
15:34:37 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:34:37 [Norm]
Date: 11 Dec 2008
15:34:37 [Norm]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/12/11-agenda
15:34:37 [Norm]
Meeting: 131
15:34:37 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:34:38 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:34:40 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:34:42 [Norm]
Regrets: Henry
15:46:35 [ht]
Norm
15:46:37 [ht]
you there?
15:46:41 [ht]
I just tried calling
15:51:20 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:51:27 [Zakim]
+Norm
15:51:39 [Zakim]
+[MIT528]
15:55:27 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:59:42 [Zakim]
-[MIT528]
15:59:43 [Zakim]
-Norm
15:59:43 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:59:44 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, [MIT528]
15:59:50 [Norm]
Why did I hang up?
15:59:57 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
16:00:06 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
16:00:13 [Zakim]
+Norm
16:00:16 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
16:00:16 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
16:00:17 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
16:00:41 [Zakim]
+[ArborText]
16:01:11 [PGrosso]
breakfast at 11:00?
16:01:11 [Zakim]
+ +95247aaaa
16:01:16 [MoZ]
Zakim, aaaa is me
16:01:16 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
16:01:57 [Zakim]
+Jeroen
16:02:04 [Vojtech]
zakim, Jeroen is Vojtech
16:02:04 [Zakim]
+Vojtech; got it
16:02:29 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:02:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, MoZ, Vojtech
16:03:48 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
16:04:27 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
16:04:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.734.352.aabb
16:04:42 [AndrewF]
zakim, aabb is Andrew
16:04:42 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
16:04:50 [htt]
htt has joined #xproc
16:05:09 [Zakim]
+??P16
16:05:11 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
16:05:11 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
16:05:28 [Norm]
Zakim, who's here?
16:05:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, MoZ, Vojtech, Andrew, richard
16:05:29 [Zakim]
On IRC I see htt, richard, AndrewF, Vojtech, MoZ, PGrosso, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, ht
16:05:39 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Paul, Mohamed, Vojtech, Andrew, Richard
16:05:50 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:05:50 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/12/11-agenda
16:05:55 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:06:01 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
16:06:01 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/20-minutes
16:06:06 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:06:11 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 18 Dec 2008?
16:06:25 [Norm]
No regrets given.
16:06:33 [Norm]
Topic: Meeting dates for the rest of December.
16:06:49 [Norm]
Skip 25 Dec and 1 Jan; next meeting 8 Jan.
16:07:10 [Norm]
Topic: Review of comments received so far on our CR
16:07:19 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/
16:07:40 [Norm]
Topic: 024: Objection to XProc (p:with-option/p:with-param)
16:08:01 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C000
16:08:07 [Norm]
s/C000/C024/
16:08:15 [Norm]
Norm attempts to summarize the thread
16:09:33 [Norm]
Richard: Presumably a sufficiently clever processor can look at the expression and work out if it needs it or not.
16:12:22 [Norm]
Norm summarizes his position.
16:12:51 [Norm]
Vojtech: If we change to make p:empty the default, then the no context error is ok, but that you'd have to name the steps and make an explicit pipe into the option binding is the major argument againts this change.
16:12:57 [Norm]
s/againts/against/
16:13:15 [Norm]
...David made a good point in saying that in the majority of XPath expressions don't use the context.
16:13:25 [Norm]
...I think that's sort of right.
16:13:45 [Norm]
Norm: In most cases where you don't need the document, you can probably use the shortcut syntax.
16:14:20 [Norm]
...In cases where you can't use the shortcut syntax, the question is which is more common, expressions that do or don't need the context.
16:14:26 [Norm]
Vojtech: We could make it more explicit in the spec.
16:15:12 [Norm]
Mohamed: When we don't need any context, we can use the shortcut syntax. When you need the context, we can say that you need it for two different reasons.
16:15:30 [Norm]
...One is to evaluate variables and the other is to evaluate nodes from the document.
16:15:59 [Norm]
...What we can say is that the context of the shortcut syntax is allowed to reference variables but not the context.
16:16:41 [Norm]
Norm: In the shortcut syntax, you only get literal values, you don't get any variables at all.
16:16:46 [Norm]
Mohamed: I'm ok with the status quo.
16:17:32 [Norm]
...I don't think making the proposed change is a good option.
16:18:21 [Norm]
Richard: Is there anywhere else where there is a port that doesn't get bound to the default readable port by defalt?
16:18:24 [Norm]
Norm: No, I don't think so.
16:18:48 [Norm]
Richard: So this would be an odd inconsistency: a place where the default for the binding is not the same as the default everywhere else.
16:19:11 [Norm]
Vojtech: What about parameter input ports?
16:19:54 [Norm]
Norm: Yeah, the binding rules for parameter input ports are a little different.
16:20:26 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone need further discussion to work out what they think the right thing to do is?
16:20:29 [Norm]
None heard.
16:20:37 [Norm]
Norm: Is there anyone on the call that supports changing the status quo?
16:20:48 [Norm]
None heard.
16:21:06 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to reply to the commenter on behalf of the working group.
16:22:59 [Norm]
Topic: UUID/Hash/form-encode
16:23:33 [Norm]
Comments 015, 019
16:24:16 [Norm]
Vojtech: Does UUID generate one uuid, or one for each replacement?
16:24:22 [Norm]
Norm: It generates one and uses it everywhere.
16:24:44 [Norm]
Vojtech: Then the question is, should these be XPath extension functions or steps?
16:25:02 [Norm]
Norm: And you also asked if they should just return a c:result with the value.
16:25:57 [Norm]
Vojtech: Yes. I think it would be much more useful if it did, because you usually want to use it to construct a full URL.
16:26:18 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, perhaps that would have been better...
16:26:39 [Norm]
Mohamed: I made a proposal like this on 24 April.
16:28:52 [MoZ]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2008Apr/0065.html
16:29:10 [MoZ]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/05/01-minutes
16:29:36 [Norm]
Vojtech: The main problem I have with this is that it's sort of two string-replace steps, so it's innefficient.
16:29:40 [Norm]
Norm: Yep.
16:30:26 [Norm]
Vojtech: It seems very strange.
16:30:42 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, it's strange. We probably ought to have done it the way you suggest. But is it worth going back to Last Call?
16:32:09 [Norm]
Paul: If it's a change we really want to make, I think we should see if we can do it without going back to Last Call.
16:32:49 [Norm]
Vojtech: You can simulate what I was proposing by using your own empty c:result as the input.
16:33:28 [Norm]
Norm: So, worst case, if we don't change anything, we've got something that's a little odd but not actively harmful.
16:37:00 [Norm]
Norm: Let's sse if we can summarize where we are. We might like to change the way p:uuid, p:hash, and p:www-form-url-encode
16:37:20 [Norm]
...so that they simply return a c:result with the result, instead of behaving like string-replace. However, you can simulate
16:37:40 [Norm]
that behavior yourslef by using a c:result as the input. So there's no critical difference in functionality, it's mostly a question of aesthetics.
16:39:05 [Norm]
Norm: I propose that we leave the status quo, but try not to repeat this error in the future
16:39:28 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:40:51 [Norm]
Topic: 016: How does www-form-urlencode/decode deal with parameters in a namespace?
16:41:47 [Norm]
First question, how does www-form-urldecode deal with parameter names that contain colons?
16:42:02 [Norm]
Vojtech: I don't think the spec says anything about that.
16:42:07 [Norm]
...We can define a dynamic error.
16:43:04 [Norm]
Norm: Or we could translate the ":" into some other character like "_"
16:44:20 [Norm]
Vojtech: I'm reluctant to try to make some possibly complex rules for translations.
16:44:40 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone think it's a bad idea to make it a dynamic error?
16:44:48 [Norm]
No one says.
16:44:51 [Norm]
s/says./says so./
16:45:12 [Norm]
Norm: We can say that for urldecode, if the resulting name is not a valid NCName, that's an error.
16:46:00 [Norm]
Everone seems happy with that.
16:46:13 [Norm]
Norm: Then what do we do for encoding, we could just use the localname.
16:46:35 [Norm]
Voytech: Then you may end up with duplicatews
16:46:38 [Norm]
Norm: Yep, that's true.
16:47:14 [Norm]
Vojtech: Sometimes you don't have a prefix at all, so you'd have to manufacture them.
16:47:22 [Norm]
Norm: Presumably that completely defeats the purpose 99% of the time.
16:47:42 [Norm]
Norm: Any other proposals besides just using the localname?
16:47:44 [Norm]
None heard.
16:48:15 [Norm]
Vojtech: In most cases when you want to use form-urlencode, it's to create simple request strings. If you want ot encode parameters in a namesapce with prefixes, then you're doing something weird.
16:48:46 [Norm]
Norm: Right. You can't use these convenience steps if you're operating outside their range.
16:48:53 [Norm]
Norm: So, go with the localname?
16:49:07 [Norm]
Norm: Any objections?
16:49:08 [Norm]
None heard.
16:49:10 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:50:03 [Norm]
Topic: 020: p:www-form-urldecode clarifications
16:51:09 [Norm]
Vojtech: It says if any parameter name occurs more than once, the result will contain more than one c:param, but it doesn't say what order they occur in.
16:51:12 [Norm]
Norm: Right.
16:51:54 [Norm]
Norm: Proposals: the document order of the c:params will correspond to the occurrence of parameters reading the input string from left to right.
16:52:20 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:55:11 [Norm]
Topic: 027: http-request, redirection, and cookies
16:55:17 [Norm]
Norm summarizes the issue
16:58:39 [Norm]
Some discussion.
16:59:20 [Norm]
Norm: So what I'm hearing is, we expect p:http-request to follow redirections, handle cookies, etc., as described in the HTTP and related specs, but the behavior of p:document and friends is implementation defined with respect to this behavior.
17:00:37 [Norm]
Mohamed: We can follow XSLT and Schema that don't say anything about that.
17:00:52 [Norm]
Richard: Doesn't anyone follow redirections? It doesn't seem reasonable to not follow redirecgts.
17:01:02 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, maybe it's just cookies.
17:01:27 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to investigate what the features in question actually are.
17:01:35 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
17:01:38 [Norm]
None heard.
17:01:40 [Norm]
Adjourned.
17:01:47 [Zakim]
-PGrosso
17:01:49 [Zakim]
-MoZ
17:01:50 [Zakim]
-Andrew
17:01:50 [Zakim]
-Norm
17:01:51 [Zakim]
-Vojtech
17:01:51 [Zakim]
-richard
17:01:53 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
17:01:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, PGrosso, +95247aaaa, MoZ, Vojtech, +1.734.352.aabb, Andrew, richard
17:01:55 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
17:02:01 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:02:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/11-xproc-minutes.html Norm
17:02:30 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
18:09:19 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
18:29:50 [Norm]
RRSAgent, bye
18:29:50 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/11-xproc-actions.rdf :
18:29:50 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to reply to the commenter on behalf of the working group. [1]
18:29:50 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/11-xproc-irc#T16-21-06
18:29:50 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to investigate what the features in question actually are. [2]
18:29:50 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/11-xproc-irc#T17-01-27