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 http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-xproc-irc

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]

Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/05/07-agenda.html

14:53:14 [ht]

Agenda same as last week. . .

14:53:44 [ht]

Plus vote to publish interim CR draft: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html, 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]

+Ht

15:00:51 [Zakim]

+[ArborText]

15:00:54 [Zakim]

-[ArborText]

15:00:58 [Zakim]

+[ArborText]

15:01:07 [MoZ]

Zakim, what is the code ?

15:01:13 [Zakim]

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

15:01:19 [Zakim]

+Alex_Milows

15:01:57 [Zakim]

+MoZ

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]

s/20/21/

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: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html, 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]

+Vojtech

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: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/05/07-minutes.html

15:12:08 [ht]

PG's emails: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009May/0005.html

15:12:17 [ht]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009May/0006.html

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]

http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/compositional.pdf

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]

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/elabInfoset/elabInfoset

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]

-Alex_Milows

15:57:17 [Zakim]

-Ht

15:57:18 [Zakim]

-PGrosso

15:57:19 [Zakim]

-Vojtech

15:57:20 [Zakim]

-MoZ

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 http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-xproc-minutes.html 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