IRC log of xproc on 2009-08-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:59:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:59:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:59:29 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:59:29 [Norm]
Date: 6 Aug 2009
14:59:29 [Norm]
14:59:29 [Norm]
Meeting: 151
14:59:29 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:59:30 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:59:32 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:00:42 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
15:00:49 [ht]
oops, how time do fly
15:00:54 [ht]
running to grab T, brb
15:01:15 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:01:26 [Norm]
15:02:13 [Norm]
Zakim, this is xproc
15:02:13 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; that matches XML_PMWG()11:00AM
15:05:11 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:05:20 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:05:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, Vojtech
15:06:29 [Zakim]
15:07:28 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:07:29 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:07:31 [Zakim]
15:08:38 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Paul, Vojtech, Henry, Alex
15:08:45 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:08:45 [Norm]
15:08:53 [Norm]
15:08:58 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:08:58 [Norm]
15:09:04 [Norm]
15:09:10 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 20 Aug 2009
15:09:30 [Norm]
Cancelling 13 Aug for Balisage
15:09:56 [Norm]
Henry gives regrets for 20 Aug, 27 Aug
15:10:35 [Norm]
Topic: 155 Circular and re-entrant libraries
15:11:01 [Norm]
Basically, what we've got doesn't work. Henry has made an alternate proposal.
15:11:17 [Norm]
15:12:05 [Norm]
Vojtech: I think there's still an issue with nested pipelines.
15:12:27 [Norm]
Henry: I think there is a problem...but not with nested pipelines.
15:12:52 [Norm]
...I don't think nested pipelines are a problem because the algorithm stops when it hits a p:pipeline child.
15:13:55 [Norm]
Henry: Consider a pipeline that has an import and a nested pipeline (as a sibling of import)
15:14:20 [Norm]
...And that nested pipeline defines symbols (nested pipelines or an import of its own).
15:15:39 [ht]
[pipe <import a> [pipe <import b>][pipe <import c>]]
15:16:45 [Norm]
Scribe struggles
15:17:00 [Norm]
Henry: The problem is that the algorithm as I specified it doesn't check the nested pipelines.
15:18:14 [Norm]
...I think I know how to fix that without changing the algorithm, but we need a different set of initial conditions.
15:19:13 [Norm]
Henry: To check a pipeline, you need to know the exports of its parent and the URIs that were involved in checking that and you start with those.
15:19:48 [Norm]
Henry: I'll send another message in a little while with an update.
15:22:47 [Norm]
Vojtech: I'm happier with the new proposal, including Henry's addendum. I think it's easier to understand.
15:22:52 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, I think so to.
15:23:30 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, we'll continue the review in email and touch base again at the next telcon.
15:24:00 [Norm]
Topic: 148 Parameter names cannot be in the XProc namespace
15:24:24 [Norm]
Vojtech: For options and variables, the spec says they can't be in the XProc namespace. It says the same thing about paramters.
15:24:38 [Norm]
...But I don't think it can be a *static* error for parameters.
15:25:05 [Norm]
Norm: Right. It's clearly not a static error.
15:25:17 [Norm]
Vojtech: Is it really necessary to say this about parameters?
15:26:25 [Norm]
Norm: We own it, that's why we say it, but I don't feel strongly about it.
15:27:56 [Norm]
Norm: Would anyone ever need to write a stylesheet that used parameters in the XProc namespace?
15:28:12 [Norm]
...I can't think of a reason. I'm inclined to leave the prohibition but make the parameter case dynamic.
15:28:18 [Norm]
Vojtech: But leave options and variables static?
15:28:20 [Norm]
Norm: Yes.
15:28:36 [Norm]
Propsal: Keept he prohibition, create a new dynamic error for the parameters case.
15:28:49 [Norm]
15:28:55 [Norm]
s/Keept he/Keep the/
15:29:31 [Norm]
Topic: 149 UUID
15:29:36 [Norm]
Norm: I think this is editorial.
15:29:48 [Norm]
Alex: I can dig up a normative reference and send it to you.
15:29:53 [Norm]
Norm: Thanks!
15:30:06 [Norm]
ACTION: Alex to find a normative reference for UUID algorithms.
15:30:29 [Norm]
Topic: 150 err:XD0002 and err:XD0011 and err:XD0029
15:33:00 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, it seems odd to have all three. We could lose 2 or 11 and 29 I think.
15:33:44 [Norm]
Norm: I guess losing 2 is the way to go, it's in a part of the spec distant from the other constraints on p:document and p:data.
15:34:44 [Norm]
Vojtech: I would remove 2.
15:35:02 [Norm]
Proposal: Remove err:XD0002 in favor of the two more specific errors, 11 and 29.
15:35:13 [Norm]
15:35:35 [alexmilowski]
Odd: Here's the official spec for UUIDs:
15:35:40 [Norm]
Topic: 151: Why is err:XC0001 a step error?
15:37:44 [Norm]
Vojtech explains why they should both be dynamic errors.
15:37:48 [Norm]
Norm: I think you're right.
15:38:08 [Norm]
Proposal: Rename err:XC0001 to some appropriate dynamic error number
15:39:42 [Norm]
Norm: Actually, I think err:XC0001 is simply subsumed by err:XD0020. There's no need to call out method if we aren't going to call out all of them.
15:40:50 [Norm]
Vojtech: Do we need two: one for invalid values and one for unsupported values?
15:41:06 [Norm]
Norm: I don't know, I'm not sure users will get value out of that distinction.
15:42:10 [Norm]
Vojtech: When I was writing the serialization tests, I had problems telling them apart.
15:42:19 [Norm]
Norm: Sold!
15:42:41 [Norm]
Proposal: Remove err:XC0001 using err:XD0020 there instead.
15:42:51 [Norm]
15:43:04 [Norm]
Topic: 152: p:http-request and err:XC0020
15:44:47 [Norm]
Alex: In both cases, it's about making sure the values are consistent.
15:45:52 [Norm]
Norm: Does anyone diagree that those are two cases of the same error, that is that one error code is sufficient.
15:46:45 [Norm]
Vojtech: The first definition talks specifically about the header value.
15:47:11 [Norm]
Alex: The spirit of this error is that to make a request, you have to get all the packaging right: headers, options, etc. have to match.
15:47:34 [Norm]
...The first mention talks about headers, but the boundry and a few other things also come into play.
15:48:07 [Norm]
Norm: I'm happy to reword err:XC0020 so that it's clear that what we're testing is general consistency in a request.
15:48:49 [Norm]
Proposal: Generalize err:XC0020 so that it's more appropriate for both cases.
15:49:03 [Norm]
15:49:15 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to generalize err:XC0020 appropriately.
15:49:57 [Norm]
Topic: 156: What nodes does replace act on?
15:50:17 [Norm]
Vojtech: The replace step talks about the "elements" that it matches, but later on it talks about comments, PIs, text, etc.
15:50:22 [Norm]
...I think it should talk about nodes instead of elements.
15:50:25 [Norm]
Norm: Sounds right to me.
15:50:59 [Norm]
Proposal: Replace elements with nodes where appropropriate to make the description accurately reflect what the step does.
15:51:42 [Norm]
15:51:55 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:52:49 [Norm]
Norm: We're getting very close to being done. Maybe September? I'll have a more coherent report of coverage by the next meeting.
15:52:56 [Norm]
No other business heard.
15:53:37 [Norm]
Alex: Who's going to Balisage?
15:53:43 [Norm]
Norm: I think it's you and I and Mohamed.
15:53:58 [Norm]
15:54:01 [Zakim]
15:54:02 [Zakim]
15:54:02 [Zakim]
15:54:02 [Zakim]
15:54:03 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:54:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, Vojtech, PGrosso, Alex_Milows, Ht
15:54:10 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world visible
15:54:14 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:54:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
15:56:26 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
15:56:45 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
17:30:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
17:54:06 [Norm]
Norm has left #xproc
18:35:03 [ht]
ht has left #xproc