IRC log of xproc on 2009-05-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:51:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:51:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:51:23 [ht]
zakim, this will be xproc
14:51:23 [Zakim]
ok, ht; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
14:51:34 [ht]
scribenick: ht
14:51:39 [ht]
scribe: Henry S. Thompson
14:51:45 [ht]
chair: Henry S. Thompson
14:51:58 [ht]
meeting: XML Processing Model WG telcon
14:53:07 [ht]
14:53:14 [ht]
Agenda same as last week. . .
14:53:44 [ht]
Plus vote to publish interim CR draft:, dated 10 May
14:59:42 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
14:59:54 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:00:04 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:00:12 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:00:16 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:00:20 [Zakim]
15:00:51 [Zakim]
15:00:54 [Zakim]
15:00:58 [Zakim]
15:01:07 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
15:01:13 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
15:01:19 [Zakim]
15:01:57 [Zakim]
15:02:36 [ht]
Topic: Admin
15:02:45 [ht]
Zakim, who is on the call?
15:02:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ht, PGrosso, Alex_Milows, MoZ
15:03:11 [MoZ]
present: Henry, Paul, Alex, Mohamed
15:03:27 [ht]
Agenda+ vote to publish interim CR draft
15:04:04 [ht]
RESOLVED: Accept minutes of 7 March as published
15:04:16 [ht]
Next meeting is 20 May
15:04:20 [ht]
Regrets from HT
15:04:34 [ht]
15:04:59 [ht]
zakim, next agendum
15:04:59 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "vote to publish interim CR draft" taken up [from ht]
15:05:21 [ht]
Norm distributed a pointer to his latest draft:, dated 10 May
15:05:44 [ht]
We are not in immediate reach of a complete test suite
15:06:01 [ht]
... and it's been more than three months, so we should publish something
15:06:14 [Zakim]
15:07:23 [ht]
RESOLVED: Ask the editor to publish the draft of 10 May as an interim CR draft as soon as convient
15:07:48 [ht]
agenda+ default XML processing model
15:07:53 [ht]
zakim, next agendum
15:07:53 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "default XML processing model" taken up [from ht]
15:08:42 [ht]
PG raised some questions by email
15:09:01 [ht]
PG: What's TimBL's current opinion wrt the pipeline model -- broken?
15:09:23 [ht]
HT: It doesn't do what he wants, but he's not opposed to it
15:10:16 [ht]
... because he's interested in the semantics of XML documents
15:10:36 [ht]
PG: His version does look like the kind of top-down recursive story you told
15:10:57 [ht]
HST: Right, and that's what I was trying to get at in the elaborated infoset story
15:11:35 [ht]
Minutes of last week:
15:12:08 [ht]
PG's emails:
15:12:17 [ht]
15:12:59 [ht]
PG: So there isn't anything in our current model which implements that kind of multi-threaded recursive story
15:13:08 [ht]
HST: Correct
15:13:26 [ht]
AM: Is it that there's a step or two missing, or is it more fundmental?
15:13:34 [ht]
HST: More fundamental
15:14:02 [PGrosso]
HST: The basic model of the proc model is infoset to infoset transforms.
15:14:39 [PGrosso]
HST: It would be problematic to use our existing framework to do a standard recursive path.
15:16:27 [ht]
15:17:40 [ht]
PG: In a full recursive-descent process, you can do things on the way down as well as on the way back up
15:17:52 [ht]
HST: That's true, you can, but you typically don't
15:18:32 [ht]
PG: What about namespace decls
15:18:42 [ht]
HST: Good example, not context-free
15:19:08 [ht]
AM: What about XSLT2 -- it would let you do a lot of that, wouldn't it?
15:19:19 [ht]
... both down _and_ up
15:19:57 [PGrosso]
HST: TBL's idea is to produce some kind of semantic object, not an infoset.
15:20:41 [PGrosso]
HST: So there is a more fundamental reason that what TBL wants is not what our proc model does.
15:22:24 [ht]
HST: [two kinds of semantics]
15:22:36 [PGrosso]
15:24:44 [ht]
PG: Surprised to see you mention XInclude, XML Sig, XML Encryption, but not xml:id and xml:base
15:25:01 [ht]
HST: Good question, and I think you're right on both counts
15:25:25 [ht]
HST: Leaving out xml:base and xml:id was accidental
15:27:39 [ht]
... xml:base comes for free with XProc
15:27:46 [ht]
... but xml:id does not, in two ways:
15:28:29 [ht]
... 1) We didn't require the xinclude step to recognise xml:ids as anchors for uris with fragids
15:28:52 [ht]
PG: And wrt anchors there are further questions wrt DTDs and XSDs
15:29:23 [ht]
... it's all intertwingled, and we appear to need to de-confuse the order
15:29:38 [ht]
... to say nothing of adding in recursive descent
15:29:55 [ht]
HST: coming back to XProc vs xml:id
15:31:58 [ht]
... we don't currently say that e.g. when parsing a character stream to produce an infoset, XProc processors should set xml:id attr IIs to have type ID
15:32:16 [ht]
... or when we introduce xml:id attrs via e.g. add-attribute, that they should get that type
15:32:29 [ht]
... does this matter? Is it detectable whether we do or not?
15:34:10 [ht]
... What if we write type-aware XPaths, which look for type ID -- should/do/how do we know if they match xml:id?
15:34:17 [ht]
... Need Norm for that
15:34:42 [ht]
HST: Coming back to Decryption and signature verification
15:40:17 [ht]
HST: [backing off]
15:42:21 [ht]
HST: Good news: Xinclude is itself recursively specified -- so we don't have to implement the fixed-point detection for it in XProc
15:43:21 [ht]
... So maybe we _could_ write an XProc pipeline which implemented a default model:
15:43:37 [ht]
... [Straw man] An XProc pipeline consisting of an XInclude step
15:43:56 [ht]
... (modulo some uncertainties wrt xml:id)
15:44:29 [ht]
PG: So all we need from a small-s schema is IDness?
15:44:42 [ht]
HST: That is the problem alright
15:46:27 [ht]
... There's a chicken and egg problem
15:47:06 [ht]
... Imagine two stages: we publish an DXPM spec; we publish a new edition of XInclude which references the new DXPM spec
15:47:16 [ht]
... We won't get everything we want until the second step
15:47:43 [ht]
PG: Do we have to worry about schemas?
15:48:13 [ht]
HST: Yes, because of the way we wrote XPointer wrt IDness
15:48:18 [ht]
PG: Any other way?
15:49:58 [ht]
HST: External entities
15:50:09 [ht]
PG: They get expanded, don't they?
15:50:17 [ht]
HST: Not by all the browsers
15:50:57 [ht]
PG: Assuming they have been expanded, there's nothing except IDness you need from schemas, in order to resolve XPointers and do xinclude
15:51:10 [ht]
... assuming only element and framework
15:53:48 [ht]
HST: [optionality/extensibility, again]
15:55:06 [ht]
HST: Open questions: 1) What about the flexibility in the XML spec itself? Do we want to require the 'full' well-formedness parse?
15:56:03 [ht]
... 2) Parameterisable/extensible/fixed+optional --- or not?
15:57:14 [Zakim]
15:57:17 [Zakim]
15:57:18 [Zakim]
15:57:19 [Zakim]
15:57:20 [Zakim]
15:57:20 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:57:24 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ht, PGrosso, Alex_Milows, MoZ, Vojtech
15:57:52 [ht]
HST: If it were up to me, I'd say "yes" to 'full' wfp
15:58:03 [ht]
PG: I thought you didn't want to bring in the DTD?
15:58:16 [ht]
HST: No, just not all the _other_ schema languages
15:58:26 [ht]
RRSAgent, make logs world-visible
15:58:32 [ht]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:58:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ht
15:58:38 [ht]
zakim, bye
15:58:38 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
15:58:43 [ht]
rrsagent, bye
15:58:43 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items