15:43:40 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 15:43:40 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-xproc-irc 15:43:44 Zakim has joined #xproc 15:43:46 Zakim, this will be xproc 15:43:46 ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 17 minutes 15:56:33 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 15:56:34 Date: 29 Jan 2009 15:56:34 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-agenda 15:56:34 Meeting: 136 15:56:34 Chair: Norm 15:56:36 Scribe: Norm 15:56:38 ScribeNick: Norm 15:56:40 Regrets: Paul 15:58:05 Zakim, what's the passcode? 15:58:05 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Norm 15:58:18 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 15:58:27 + +1.646.378.aaaa 15:59:28 Zakim, who's here? 15:59:28 On the phone I see +1.646.378.aaaa 15:59:31 Where's my working group? 15:59:32 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Norm, MSM 16:00:12 Zakim, aaaa is Norm 16:00:12 +Norm; got it 16:01:38 +Vojtech 16:03:29 Hmm. Where's my working group? 16:04:14 MoZ has joined #xproc 16:04:28 +Alex_Milowski 16:04:38 Zakim, what is the code ? 16:04:38 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ 16:06:58 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 16:07:49 Are you going to be able to join soon, MoZ ? 16:08:10 ht has joined #xproc 16:08:21 zakim, please call ht-781 16:08:22 ok, ht; the call is being made 16:08:23 +Ht 16:08:43 Present: Norm, Vojtech, Alex, Henry 16:08:51 Topic: Accept this agenda? 16:08:51 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-agenda 16:08:55 Accepted. 16:08:58 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 16:08:58 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/22-minutes 16:09:01 Accepted. 16:09:03 +MoZ 16:09:08 Topic: Next meeting: telcon 5 Feb 2009? 16:09:08 Topic: Next meeting: telcon 5 Feb 2009? 16:09:18 No regrets given. 16:09:23 Topic: Review of Widgets 1.0: Packaging and Configuration 16:09:23 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-widgets-20081222/ 16:09:23 Topic: Review of Widgets 1.0: Packaging and Configuration 16:09:23 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-widgets-20081222/ 16:10:03 ACTION: Mohamed to review the spec and report back if he finds any issues 16:10:13 Topic: 074. Select expression in input declaration 16:10:13 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C074 16:11:12 Norm summarizes, and reports that his implementation would return 16:11:25 Vojtech: I'm more inclined to read the spec to say that the select is applied only when the default binding is used. 16:12:32 Norm: It seems to me that preserving the select expression is the safest thing. 16:12:46 q+ to agree with Vojtech 16:12:53 Vojtech: That makes sense for the default, but it may make no sense if you pass in random input. 16:12:58 Mohamed: I agree with Vojtech. 16:13:11 ack ht 16:13:11 ht, you wanted to agree with Vojtech 16:13:51 Henry: My argument would be that the documentation distinguishes two cases, when there's a default and when there isn't. Historically, there used to be three different tableaux. 16:14:09 ...I would hope that the select appears only in the giving a default case, and not in the vanilla declaration case. 16:15:44 Norm: The tableaux in the spec does allow it, but that's because it no longer distinguishes between the case where you can provide a default and when you don't. 16:17:03 More to the point, the following: "If a binding is provided in the declaration, then select may be used to select a portion of the input identified by the p:empty, p:document, p:data, or p:inline elements in the p:input." 16:17:13 Mohamed: I think the note in 5.1.1 points in the same direction. 16:17:50 Norm: Proposal: the select on the declaration is only used if the default binding is used. 16:18:26 Accepted. 16:18:42 Mohamed: Can we add that the select cannot be used if there isn't a default binding. 16:19:19 ACTION: Norm to clarify when the select applies. 16:19:45 Topic: 026. New http-request test 16:19:45 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C026 16:21:08 Norm summarizes the thread. 16:21:50 Vojtech: Someone on xproc-dev noted that if you allow cookies, then you sometimes need to preserve state. 16:22:40 Norm: I think we should do cookies within a single http-request step, but that saving cookies over a longer period should be implementation-defined. 16:23:21 Norm: Proposal: By default, http-request should follow redirects and should preserve cookies (for the duration of that single request) 16:23:42 Accepted. 16:24:12 Mohamed: Can we say something about preserving cookies for a longer period being implementation defined. 16:24:38 Proposal: Implementations MAY provide implementation-defined mechanisms to preserve cookies for longer periods of time, but are not required to do so. 16:24:57 Accepted. 16:26:06 Norm: The next question is p:document, p:load, etc. I think we should say that those instructions follow redirects but do not support cookies or other advanced user-agent features. 16:26:15 Henry: I think we have to be explicit about this for interop. 16:26:34 Mohamed: I think we should keep these instructions simple. 16:26:42 Vojtech: But at least redirect should be handled. 16:26:50 Henry: Absolutely. Do what standard libraries do, but nothing else. 16:28:11 Norm: Proposal: p:docuemnt, p:load, etc. follow redirects but do not preserve cookies, etc. 16:28:42 s/docuemnt/document/ 16:28:59 Vojtech: Do we need to say something about steps like p:xsl-formatter? 16:29:08 ...And other steps that can perhaps store to http URIs? 16:29:16 Norm: I don't think PUT and POST support redirect... 16:30:24 Norm: I think we've left the ability to write output as implementation defined for security reasons, so we don't have to say anything. 16:30:43 Accepted. 16:31:29 Norm: The last question is, do we want to support the ability to *not* follow redirects. 16:32:52 Some discussion about whether or not you need to provide options for all these possible features. 16:34:02 Mohamed: This is related to HEAD right, which doesn't follow redirects. 16:34:26 Norm: If that's teh case, then I'm happy to leave the option out. 16:34:29 s/teh/the/ 16:35:15 Alex: The spec says that GET and HEAD MAY follow redirects. 16:35:27 Norm: "May"? That's not useful. 16:36:11 Alex: There are a whole bunch of variations here. 16:37:03 Norm: Ok, I've lost all personal interst in persuing this. I don't want to add more compexity here. We can add it in 1.1 if the 1/2 of 1% of people who might ever care, do in fact care. 16:37:08 Proposal: No such option. 16:37:14 Accepted. 16:37:31 Topic: 036. Multiple inputs/outputs 16:37:32 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C036 16:37:34 Norm summarizes. 16:38:31 Norm: Allow source/result to accept sequences by default? 16:38:34 Mohamed: no. 16:38:37 Henry: Why? 16:38:57 Mohamed: Because I think it's and advanced feature and you should have to explicitly enable it. 16:39:14 Vojtech: I'm not sure it's really necessary to restrict sequences. 16:40:47 Norm: I think the reason may have been because serializing a sequences isn't something you can do with vanilla XML 16:41:33 Vojtech: On p:pipeline you could add your own output port and then you have a pipeline with two outputs. 16:42:07 Norm: I think James point that this will either be an FAQ or we should change it. 16:42:35 Henry: I think, on balance, I'm in favor of making this change because it imposes no change on any who's been using the steps but will allow more functionality. 16:42:41 Mohamed: In case you're testing on an error, it'll change. 16:43:18 Alex: I remember this being that basically p:pipeline was supposed to be the simple case. 16:43:25 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:43:25 On the phone I see Norm, Vojtech, Alex_Milowski, Ht, MoZ 16:44:00 Straw poll: Should we change p:pipelien to allow sequences on input and output. 16:44:05 s/lien/line/ 16:44:08 s/output./output?/ 16:44:41 Unanimity for no change. 16:44:55 Proposal: the status quo remains, we'll make no change here. 16:45:06 Accepted. 16:45:18 Topic: 040. Schematron for XProc validation 16:45:18 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C040 16:45:20 Norm summarizes. 16:46:13 Norm: I'd like to respond, "Yes, it might. And if you write it, we'll put it somewhere that the public can see it." 16:46:17 Mohamed: I agree. 16:46:32 Proposal: The WG will not undertake this task. 16:46:38 Accepted. 16:46:50 Topic: 045. Using p:variable 16:46:50 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C045 16:47:41 Norm summarizes. 16:48:15 Mohamed: I think the use case is not that simple. Just saying that you want to have the variable on the output doesn't mean you know the structure you need. 16:48:23 ...I think the thread offers several solutions that are sufficient. 16:48:35 Vojtech: I agree you can, but it is a bit annoying. 16:49:32 Norm hypothesizes about we might do, but doesn't want to do it. 16:50:22 Alex: Isn't XSLT sufficient here? 16:50:26 Norm: I think it is. 16:50:33 Vojtech: It's not that simple to do, there is a little bit of work involved. 16:50:43 Mohamed: I think it's worth letting exproc do this. 16:50:59 Alex: It's not that bad. 16:51:37 Norm: Does anyone want to argue that we should add a step for this? 16:51:39 None heard. 16:51:45 Proposal: No change, leave the status quo. 16:51:52 Accepted. 16:52:14 Topic: 051. 2.13 flawed? 16:52:14 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C051 16:52:42 Norm summarizes. 16:52:54 Norm: The question, I think, is if we can impose constraints on future working groups. 16:53:00 Henry: I'd be surprised if that caused a problem. 16:53:30 ...Like all restrictive covenants, it's subject to the will of the court at the time when someone does violate the constraint. 16:54:06 Norm: So the high order bit is, there's no precedent for getting bounced because of this point. 16:54:26 Henry: I think that's right. You can, for example, have a namespace document that says "frozen". 16:54:33 Norm: Proposal: leave the status quo 16:54:54 Accepted. 16:55:05 Topic: 068. err:XC0016 and err:XD019 16:55:06 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C068 16:55:53 Norm thinks this is editorial on furthe reflection and proposes we accept it. 16:56:12 Proposal: Accept the change, removing err:XC0016 in favor of err:XD0019. 16:56:21 Accepted. 16:56:39 Topic: Any other business? 16:57:00 Norm: The W3C Technical Plenary will be held in Santa Clara, CA, US, 2-6 November, 2009. 16:57:42 Norm: I propose that if we're still a chartered WG in 2009, we agree to meet there as our next f2f. 16:57:59 Mohamed: Any word on charters? 16:58:28 Norm: No, not yet. But I'm not expecting any problems. 16:58:41 Mohamed: If the US immegration policy will allow Europeans into the company... 16:58:55 Norm: Yes, tentatively, that's where we'll plan to meet. 16:59:24 Adjourned 16:59:26 -Alex_Milowski 16:59:30 -Norm 16:59:32 -Ht 16:59:34 -Vojtech 16:59:34 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 16:59:35 Attendees were +1.646.378.aaaa, Norm, Vojtech, Alex_Milowski, Ht, MoZ 16:59:35 RRSAgent, set logs world-visible 16:59:39 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:59:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-xproc-minutes.html Norm 17:00:09 About Spec Explorer? 17:00:13 yup 17:00:25 It's in my inbox, but unread. Big push to get a project ready for user testing next week. 17:00:29 I'll get to it asap. 17:00:33 thanks 17:00:51 :) 17:00:55 Bother -- I can't find any tool which a) automatically redirects for GET and b) supports HEAD 17:01:56 wget? 17:01:59 curl? 17:07:05 can't make wget do HEAD 17:07:13 [forgot, if I ever knew] 17:07:40 I misread the curl docs -- curl treats GET and HEAD the same way wrt redirect, so we're good 17:07:43 I think 18:53:30 Zakim has left #xproc 20:43:52 Norm has joined #xproc 21:17:35 Norm has joined #xproc 22:20:42 Norm has joined #xproc 22:34:00 MoZ has joined #xproc 22:45:07 Norm has joined #xproc