IRC log of xproc on 2009-04-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:01:00 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:01:00 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:01:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #xproc
15:01:04 [Norm]
Regrets: Henry, Mohamed
15:01:06 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:01:08 [Norm]
Date: 9 Apr 2009
15:01:11 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:01:12 [Norm]
15:01:14 [Norm]
Meeting: 139
15:01:16 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:01:18 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:01:20 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:01:22 [Norm]
Regrets: Henry, Mohamed
15:01:24 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be xproc
15:01:24 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
15:01:45 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:01:51 [Zakim]
15:01:52 [Zakim]
15:01:57 [Zakim]
15:02:01 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:02:01 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:02:37 [Zakim]
15:02:48 [Norm]
Zakim, Jeroen is Vojtech
15:02:49 [Zakim]
+Vojtech; got it
15:04:05 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Richard, Paul, Vojtech
15:04:23 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:04:23 [Norm]
15:04:32 [Norm]
15:04:38 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:04:38 [Norm]
15:04:53 [Norm]
15:05:08 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 16 Apr 2009?
15:05:12 [Norm]
No regrets heard.
15:06:04 [Norm]
Topic: CR126 Request from TAG: Status of work on default processing model
15:06:31 [Norm]
Paul: Are we still planning to try to address that?
15:06:48 [Norm]
Norm: I think I'd like us to take a look at it
15:06:59 [Norm]
Richard: Is the TAG responsible for overlapping things?
15:07:26 [Norm]
Norm: I think the TAG is looking at some related issues, but they probably hope we'll provide some guidance.
15:07:36 [Norm]
Richard: The description in the charter is pretty vague, perhaps we could get more specifics?
15:07:56 [Norm]
Norm: Yes. Indeed.
15:08:49 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm/Henry to attempt to provide a more crisp description of what's needed as a first step towards getting to this work.
15:09:12 [Norm]
Richard: Use cases would be a good place to start. I've long imagined that one such use case is to answer the question "what does a web browser do with an XML document"
15:10:01 [Norm]
Norm: I'll work this into the agenda more regularly so that we can track our progress.
15:10:51 [Norm]
Topic: CR 100/101 Section 5.11, the inherited environment, and input/output ports.
15:10:59 [Norm]
Norm attempts to summarize.
15:11:50 [Norm]
Norm: I think the answer, whether the prose is clear or not, is that steps can't see their own inputs and outputs. The question of 5.11 is an attempt, I think to address the special case of p:output on a compound step.
15:14:33 [Norm]
Richard: The outputs of a compound step are surely in the same state as the other step children of a subpipeline?
15:15:13 [Norm]
Vojtech: I thought that in 5.11 the phrase "In all cases except the p:output of a compound step" was redundant.
15:16:00 [Norm]
...When I read it, I went looking to see what was so special, but in fact I think it's covered by the other definitions. It isn't special.
15:16:20 [Norm]
Norm: Fair enough, I'm happy to remove the phrase if it causes more confusion than clarity.
15:16:26 [Norm]
Vojtech: Unless I missed something, I wasn't sure.
15:17:45 [Norm]
Further discussion of 2.5
15:24:13 [Norm]
Norm: In 100, the magic phrase from 2.5 is "the container's contained steps". Compound steps see their siblings, but not themselves.
15:24:44 [Norm]
Vojtech: I have a compound step. It sees the output ports of its contained steps. Suppose one of the contained steps is a compound step.
15:25:03 [Norm]
...Now inside that compound step, this step inherites the visibility of the output ports from its parent, which means that it sees it's output port.
15:25:29 [Norm]
Richard: No, it sees the output ports of its siblings, not its parent.
15:27:31 [Norm]
Norm: I think that second bullet in 2.5 needs to clarify that it doesn't apply to the contained step itself.
15:29:19 [Norm]
Norm: To fix issue 100, we need to say "The union of all the declared outputs of all of the containers's contained steps *except this step* are added to the readable ports." But in better English.
15:31:35 [Norm]
15:31:55 [Norm]
Norm: Coming back to 101, I now think that prose is correct. It wouldn't be allowed according to the rules and rather than rewrite the rules to allow it, we're simply stating an exception.
15:32:03 [Norm]
15:32:19 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to fix the rules in 2.5 to satisfy CR #100. CR #101 can be closed without action.
15:32:52 [Norm]
Topic: #104 validate-with-xml-schema - multiple schemas provided
15:33:19 [Norm]
Vojtech: If you have the validate with XML Schema step and you pass multiple schemas, what does that mean.
15:35:47 [Norm]
Norm attempts to describe the schema validation rules of XSD.
15:36:02 [Norm]
Vojtech: And what about xs:include and xs:import.
15:36:29 [Norm]
Norm: I propose we wait for Henry's input.
15:36:49 [Norm]
Topic: 105 p:xquery and c:data
15:38:45 [Norm]
Vojtech explains.
15:39:01 [Norm]
Norm: It boils down to whether the 3rd or 4th bullet in 7.2.9 applies. I don't think it much matters.
15:39:52 [Norm]
Vojtech: I think we should say that it's c:data without a content-type or with a content-type that specifies a text content type...something like that.
15:40:09 [Norm]
Norm: That works for me.
15:40:20 [Norm]
Norm: Proposed: make the change that Vojtech outlines.
15:40:36 [Norm]
15:40:58 [Norm]
Topic: #106 p:exec - path separators
15:42:24 [Norm]
Norm: My proposal is that "you lose" if you get mixtures of slashes and you turn on fix-slashes.
15:43:36 [Norm]
Vojtech: So you lose if you need a mixture fo forward and backward slashes in the filename
15:44:05 [Norm]
Norm: Only if you turn on the fix-slashes option.
15:45:41 [Norm]
Norm: It seems like we have two choices, leave it as is or invent a new escaping mechanism.
15:46:02 [Norm]
Richard: We could use a private use character or allow the fix-slashes option to specify which character to replace with the platform-specific slash.
15:47:37 [Norm]
Norm: We've made pretty significant changes to p:exec already.
15:48:13 [Norm]
Richard: I think I'd say that no-translation is applied unless you specify the fixup and then that fixup is applied everywhere.
15:49:28 [Norm]
Vojtech: It sounds good to me.
15:49:44 [Norm]
Norm: How about I write up a proposal that does this and we see if we like it.
15:50:05 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to write this up as a proposal.
15:52:38 [Norm]
Topic: #107 p:exec - multiple source documents
15:52:51 [Norm]
Vojtech: What do multiple source documents mean? Is it only to allow no documents?
15:53:00 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, I think it probably was.
15:53:07 [Norm]
Vojtech: So what happens if you pass two, is it an error?
15:53:35 [Norm]
Norm: I think we should either say that its an error or say that its implementation-defined.
15:54:54 [Norm]
Norm: Do you have any command-line tools that accept a sequence of documents on stdin?
15:55:00 [Norm]
Richard: No, I don't think so.
15:55:42 [Norm]
Norm: I propose we make it an error in V1 to pass a sequence of more than one document.
15:56:39 [Norm]
15:56:45 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:56:54 [Norm]
None heard.
15:56:57 [Zakim]
15:56:58 [Zakim]
15:56:59 [Zakim]
15:56:59 [Zakim]
15:57:00 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:57:01 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, PGrosso, richard, Vojtech
15:57:04 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
15:57:08 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:57:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
15:57:48 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
17:32:20 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
17:36:22 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc