IRC log of xproc on 2009-04-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:58:33 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #xproc

14:58:33 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-xproc-irc

14:58:35 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #xproc

14:58:36 [Norm]

Meeting: XML Processing Model WG

14:58:36 [Norm]

Date: 30 Apr 2009

14:58:36 [Norm]

Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-agenda

14:58:36 [Norm]

Meeting: 142

14:58:36 [Norm]

Chair: Norm

14:58:38 [Norm]

Scribe: Norm

14:58:40 [Norm]

ScribeNick: Norm

14:58:42 [Norm]

Regrets: Vojtech

14:58:56 [Norm]

Norm has changed the topic to: XProc WG meets 30 Apr 2009: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-agenda

14:59:36 [PGrosso]

PGrosso has joined #xproc

15:00:52 [Norm]

Zakim, this is xproc

15:00:52 [Zakim]

ok, Norm; that matches XML_PMWG()11:00AM

15:00:56 [Norm]

Zakim, what's the passcode?

15:00:58 [PGrosso]

Zakim, this is .....too late

15:00:59 [Zakim]

the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Norm

15:01:05 [Zakim]

sorry, PGrosso, I do not see a conference named '.....too late' in progress or scheduled at this time

15:01:09 [Zakim]

+Norm

15:01:09 [Norm]

Zakim, this is xproc

15:01:10 [Zakim]

Norm, this was already XML_PMWG()11:00AM

15:01:11 [Zakim]

ok, Norm; that matches XML_PMWG()11:00AM

15:01:37 [MoZ]

MoZ has joined #xproc

15:01:51 [ht]

zakim, please call ht-781

15:01:51 [Zakim]

ok, ht; the call is being made

15:01:53 [Zakim]

+Ht

15:02:36 [MoZ]

Zakim, what is the code ?

15:02:36 [Zakim]

the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ

15:03:20 [Zakim]

+ +95247aaaa

15:03:25 [MoZ]

Zakim, aaaa is me

15:03:26 [Zakim]

+MoZ; got it

15:04:37 [MoZ]

Zakim, who is here ?

15:04:37 [Zakim]

On the phone I see PGrosso, Norm, Ht (muted), MoZ

15:04:38 [Zakim]

On IRC I see MoZ, PGrosso, Zakim, RRSAgent, Norm, ht_home, ht

15:05:04 [ht]

ack ht

15:06:07 [Norm]

Present: Norm, Henry, Mohamed, Paul

15:06:16 [Norm]

Topic: Accept this agenda?

15:06:16 [Norm]

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-agenda

15:06:21 [Norm]

Accepted

15:06:31 [Norm]

Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

15:06:31 [Norm]

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes

15:06:32 [Norm]

Accepted

15:06:48 [Norm]

Topic: Next meeting: telcon 7 May 2009

15:06:52 [Norm]

No regrets given.

15:07:37 [Norm]

Topic: 103 p:validate-with-xml-schema - multiple schemas

15:07:59 [Norm]

Norm: We have a partial resolution, I propose that we leave the rest implementation dependent.

15:08:01 [Norm]

s/dent/dant/

15:10:07 [Norm]

MoZ: Why implementation-dependent?

15:10:14 [Norm]

Norm: Uhhh...

15:10:23 [Norm]

Henry: Because it will depend on what the underlying validator will do.

15:10:35 [Norm]

Norm: And because in 2.2.1 we say implementation-dependent mostly.

15:11:13 [Norm]

Norm: Anyone think we can answer 103 normatively w/o making changes to 2.2.1?

15:11:14 [Norm]

None heard

15:11:27 [Norm]

Proposal: The behavior is implementation-dependent.

15:11:37 [Norm]

Accepted.

15:12:04 [Norm]

Topic: 124 XQuery 1.0

15:12:40 [Norm]

Norm summarizes the email

15:13:20 [Norm]

Norm: In short, I want to take the version numbers out and say that the p:xquery step (for example) does XQuery, the exact versions of which being implementation-defined.

15:13:35 [Norm]

MoZ: I'm concerned because it opens an interoperability problem. We explicitly solved this problem for XSLT.

15:14:06 [Norm]

Henry: Yeah, but most W3C specs are moving in this direction. In general, it seems to me that it's an overall improvement to the value proposition for our users if as many tools as possible support as many versions as possible.

15:14:49 [Norm]

Norm: Right. In particular, I want to avoid making an impl non-conformant just because a new version of XQuery comes out.

15:15:06 [Norm]

Henry: I shouldn't have said version, because I've been falling into the habit of assuming everyone will follow the rules.

15:15:30 [Norm]

...I'm happy to say "this or subsequent versions" on the assumption that there will be backwards compatibility.

15:15:41 [Norm]

s/subsequent versions/subsequent editions/

15:16:13 [Norm]

Norm: So you do want to make an XProc impl non-conformant if it supports XQuery 1.1 or 2.0?

15:16:44 [Norm]

Henry: I don't want an implementation that only supports XQuery 2.0.

15:17:12 [Norm]

...And if I want to be careful, I have to go further and say only an XQuery 2.0 that's not backwards compatible with 1.0.

15:17:27 [Norm]

MoZ: Can we say XQuery 1.0 or subsequent edition or version that is backwards compatible with 1.0.

15:18:03 [Norm]

Norm: I guess I could live with that.

15:19:06 [Norm]

Henry: I was going to add one more bit of flexibility: as well as other non-backwards compatible versions at user option.

15:19:52 [Norm]

...The point is, you must support something that's backward compatible with what we spec, but you can do other things if you give the user control.

15:20:01 [Norm]

MoZ: I like it, and I think we should say the same thing for p:xsl-formatter.

15:20:09 [Norm]

Norm: Fine by me.

15:20:42 [Norm]

MoZ: What is the expecte behavior for XML Schema?

15:20:50 [Norm]

s/expecte/expect/

15:21:03 [Norm]

...If the processor only handles 1.1 and not 1.0, is it something we want to avoid or allow?

15:21:10 [Norm]

Norm: Should we say the same thing for XML Schema?

15:21:22 [Norm]

Henry: I'd even think we could go so far as to say this once at the top of the document.

15:21:33 [Norm]

Norm: I'm ok with that.

15:21:41 [Norm]

s/at the top of/in the/

15:22:27 [Norm]

Proposal: steps must implement the specified version or any subsequent version that is backwards compatible. At user option, they may support other, non-compatible versions.

15:23:07 [Norm]

s/subsequent version/subsequent edition or version/

15:23:34 [Norm]

s/non-compatible versions./non-compatible versions or extensions./

15:23:53 [Norm]

Accepted.

15:24:16 [Norm]

Topic: 127 rejecting invalid/unsupported p:serialization options

15:25:16 [Norm]

Norm summarizes.

15:25:53 [Norm]

Norm: I think it boils down to saying that an implementation MAY or MUST or MUST NOT check serialization options even if it's not serializing.

15:25:58 [Norm]

MoZ: I think MAY is sensible.

15:26:36 [Norm]

Norm: I think that's probably right. It's a small interop problem, but only on pipelines that aren't, in some sense, correct.

15:26:48 [Norm]

Proposal: Use MAY

15:27:03 [Norm]

Accepted.

15:27:26 [Norm]

Topic: 128: default namespaces

15:27:28 [Norm]

Norm summrizes.

15:29:08 [Norm]

MoZ: For elements, it's explicit in XPath 1.0; for function calls it's in XSLT.

15:29:14 [Norm]

...We definitely have to note it.

15:30:18 [Norm]

Norm: I think we should say that element names w/o a prefix are in no namespace, function names w/o a prefix always invoke the underlying XPath functions. They are not effected by any in-scope binding for the default namespace.

15:30:45 [Norm]

MoZ: I think that for 2.0, it's already said in the spec. It's only when you're in 1.0 when you have to say that.

15:31:17 [Norm]

Norm: The other part is, in an XPath 2.0 implentation, we don't provide any mechnaims for change the default function namespace.

15:31:33 [Norm]

Accepted.

15:31:53 [Norm]

Norm: We have closed all of the outstanding comments on XProc!

15:31:58 [Norm]

Topic: Next steps

15:32:16 [Norm]

1. The default processing model

15:32:39 [Norm]

2. Get to PR!

15:33:01 [Norm]

3. A complete test suite

15:33:21 [Norm]

4. We've missed our heartbeat requirement

15:33:52 [Norm]

Norm: Proposal: we publish a new CR draft, containing all of the resolutions sometime in May then work on finishing the test suite while we talk about the default processing model.

15:34:54 [Norm]

Paul: We're not going to CR again?

15:35:06 [Norm]

Norm: No, we're not.

15:35:13 [Norm]

Henry: It's going to be published as CR in TR space.

15:36:27 [Norm]

Norm: Anyone think that's a bad plan?

15:36:44 [Norm]

MoZ: I think it's a good plan.

15:36:57 [Norm]

...We need to say that we're moving forward.

15:38:05 [Norm]

...We'll have a chance to encourage people to help us with the test suite.

15:38:27 [Norm]

Topic: Default processing model.

15:38:31 [Norm]

Not ready for discussion this week

15:38:36 [Norm]

Topic: Any other business?

15:38:41 [Norm]

None heard.

15:38:43 [Norm]

Adjourned.

15:38:51 [Zakim]

-Norm

15:38:52 [Zakim]

-PGrosso

15:38:55 [Norm]

RRSAgent, set logs world-visible

15:38:56 [Zakim]

-Ht

15:38:58 [Zakim]

-MoZ

15:38:58 [Zakim]

XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended

15:38:59 [Zakim]

Attendees were PGrosso, Norm, Ht, +95247aaaa, MoZ

15:38:59 [Norm]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

15:38:59 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-xproc-minutes.html Norm

15:39:08 [PGrosso]

PGrosso has left #xproc

15:53:41 [Norm]

Norm has joined #xproc

16:13:26 [Norm]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

16:13:26 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-xproc-minutes.html Norm

17:24:56 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #xproc

17:49:07 [Norm]

RRSAgent, bye

17:49:07 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items