IRC log of xproc on 2009-09-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:55:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:55:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:55:41 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be xproc
14:55:41 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
14:56:10 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:56:10 [Norm]
Date: 10 Sep 2009
14:56:10 [Norm]
14:56:10 [Norm]
Meeting: 152
14:56:10 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:56:11 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:56:15 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:00:20 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:00:32 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:00:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.413.624.aaaa
15:00:40 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
15:00:41 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
15:00:43 [Zakim]
15:01:20 [Zakim]
+ +95247aabb
15:01:34 [MoZ]
Zakim, aaaa is GoogleVoiceFan
15:01:35 [Zakim]
sorry, MoZ, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
15:02:00 [MoZ]
Zakim, aabb is me
15:02:00 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:02:12 [MoZ]
Zakim, aaaa is Norm
15:02:12 [Zakim]
sorry, MoZ, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
15:02:29 [Zakim]
15:02:36 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:02:36 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:02:37 [Zakim]
15:03:33 [MoZ]
Zakim, who is making noise?
15:03:43 [Zakim]
MoZ, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: MoZ (4%)
15:03:48 [Zakim]
15:03:57 [MoZ]
Zakim, mute me and give me a beer
15:03:57 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'mute me and give me a beer', MoZ
15:03:58 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, MoZ, Alex_Milows, Ht, Jeroen
15:04:04 [MoZ]
Zakim, mute me
15:04:04 [Zakim]
MoZ should now be muted
15:04:17 [Norm]
Zakim, Jeroen is Vojtech
15:04:18 [ht]
zakim, jeroen is Vojtech
15:04:19 [Zakim]
+Vojtech; got it
15:04:20 [Zakim]
sorry, ht, I do not recognize a party named 'jeroen'
15:04:23 [Norm]
Zakim, who's talking?
15:04:29 [ht]
zakim, mute me
15:04:29 [Zakim]
Ht should now be muted
15:04:34 [Zakim]
Norm, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 6 (18%)
15:04:37 [MoZ]
Zakim, unmute me
15:04:38 [Zakim]
MoZ should no longer be muted
15:04:46 [PGrosso]
yes, ht, fixed
15:05:19 [ht]
zakim, disconnect me
15:05:19 [Zakim]
Ht is being disconnected
15:05:20 [Zakim]
15:05:25 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:05:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, MoZ, Alex_Milows, Vojtech
15:05:31 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:05:31 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:05:33 [Zakim]
15:05:33 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Paul, Mohamed, Alex, Vojtech, Henry
15:06:05 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:06:05 [Norm]
15:06:19 [Norm]
15:06:25 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:06:25 [Norm]
15:06:33 [Norm]
15:06:39 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 17 Sep 2009
15:06:55 [Norm]
Mohamed gives regrets.
15:07:02 [Norm]
Topic: TPAC 2009
15:07:21 [Norm]
Norm: Schedule for the first week of November in Santa Clara.
15:07:31 [Norm]
15:07:38 [Norm]
15:07:48 [Norm]
Norm: Is anyone else planning to attend?
15:07:57 [Norm]
Alex: I'm planning to be there, it's local for me.
15:08:01 [Norm]
Mohamed: I'm on the fence.
15:08:14 [Norm]
Paul: I can't make it.
15:09:03 [Norm]
Vojtech: I'm still unsure. It depends on the status of my membership.
15:09:19 [Norm]
Henry: Try real hard, we'd like to have you.
15:09:22 [Norm]
Norm: Indeed.
15:09:52 [Norm]
Vojtech: I've made good progress on getting membership restarted. Now waiting on the final step.
15:11:40 [Norm]
Topic: Appendix G: Handling Circular and Re-entrant Library Imports
15:12:09 [Norm]
15:12:27 [Norm]
Henry: I think there's been no feedback on this revised version.
15:12:52 [Norm]
Norm: Is the 4 Aug version I just posted the revised version, or the original?
15:13:53 [alexmilowski]
6th august ...
15:16:48 [Norm]
Alex: The two sentences "given a pipeline library document..." and "given a top-level pipeline document..."
15:16:56 [Norm]
...I believe you mean the visited set.
15:18:38 [Norm]
...where you say "singleton set"
15:19:50 [Norm]
Henry: What I understand Alex to be saying is "Given a pipeline ... it is an error if ... against the background of a visited set being a singleton set containing DU."
15:19:57 [Norm]
Alex: Right. However you want to phrase that.
15:20:53 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, I think this would be fine, though I'm not sure I like having teh defn of bag-merger in a footnote.
15:21:24 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry to make one more pass over the prose and insert it into the spec as a revised App G.
15:21:58 [Norm]
Topic: Open CR issues
15:22:19 [Norm]
15:22:40 [Norm]
Topic: Does p:data preserve charset value for text content types
15:23:36 [Norm]
Norm: I don't feel strongly, but I think it should preserve the parameters as p:http-request does.
15:23:48 [Norm]
Alex: I agree.
15:25:06 [Norm]
Mohamed: They're incorrect in UTF-8, but they aren't incorrect in Unicode.
15:25:22 [Norm]
Alex: Is there a valid mapping from the code points to Unicode?
15:25:28 [Norm]
General agreement that there is.
15:25:54 [Norm]
15:26:22 [Norm]
Vojtech: My question was about encodings in general, not that specific one.
15:26:32 [Norm]
Norm: I heard some agreement that we preserve the values.
15:26:49 [Norm]
Proposal: The charset value (and other parameters) are preserved.
15:26:58 [Norm]
15:27:07 [Norm]
Topic: 155/158 Appendix G.
15:27:09 [Norm]
Resolved, see above.
15:27:24 [Norm]
Topic: 159 p:choose/p:xpath question
15:27:42 [Norm]
Vojtech: What happens if you specify an xpath context in p:when but you don't specify a binding?
15:28:41 [Norm]
...In our implementation, the p:when is using the default readable port, not the binding from p:xpath-context from p:choose.
15:29:18 [Norm]
Norm: I think this is an edge case that we didn't think of, so we just need to say what the answer is.
15:30:34 [Norm]
Norm: Why did we allow the binding inside xpath-context to be optional?
15:30:52 [Norm]
Vojtech: I think we might have done it to preserve the default.
15:31:12 [Norm]
Alex: So this one uses the default context?
15:31:37 [Norm]
Norm: I think there are two possible interpretations, an empty p:when either goes back to the default readable port or it goes back to the default on p:choose.
15:31:47 [Norm]
15:31:59 [Norm]
s/port or/port of the p:choose or/
15:32:15 [Norm]
...Or we make it illegal by requiring a binding inside p:xpath-context.
15:32:47 [Norm]
Vojtech: Right now the spec says it works just like p:input, so it would get connected to the default readable port.
15:33:21 [Norm]
Norm: Making an empty xpath-context go back to the choose would be redundant.
15:33:41 [Norm]
...So I think that boils down to two reasonable intepretations: the default readable port or we make it an error.
15:34:19 [Norm]
Norm: For the 1 in 999,000 case when someone might use this, I guess that would be ok.
15:34:58 [Norm]
Mohamed: I think it's a bad idea, when a user uses xpath-context in the choose, then I think we should make the user be explicit in any p:when where they want a different binding.
15:35:08 [Norm]
...I think we should forbid having an empty p:xpath-context.
15:35:14 [Norm]
Vojtech: I think I agree with Mohamed on this one.
15:35:26 [Norm]
Norm: Ok by me.
15:35:48 [Norm]
Proposal: Make it an error to leave the p:xpath-context empty.
15:35:58 [Norm]
15:36:15 [Norm]
Norm: I'll change the content model so that it's required, we don't need a new error code.
15:36:26 [Norm]
Topic: 160 Accomodation for JSON
15:38:15 [Norm]
Norm: The JSON RFC doesn't define an XML encoding, it just defines JSON
15:38:24 [Norm]
Alex: The c:query step is for XQuery, not random queries.
15:38:50 [Norm]
Vojtech: Perhaps he meant that if the content-type on p:data was applicatin/json then it would be turned into XML.
15:39:12 [Norm]
Mohamed: I don't think the purpose of this spec is to convert all tree-like structures into XML.
15:39:55 [Norm]
Henry: I think this is an area where it's perfectly reasonable for implementors to compete. When we were doing the markup pipeline, it ended up being the case that it was appropriate to add a command line switch to upconvert STDIN from some format (like SGML) to XML.
15:40:41 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, and I think, I'd have to go back and read carefully, that an impl could recognize application/json and turn it into XML.
15:41:14 [Norm]
Norm: Nope, I was wrong.
15:42:18 [Norm]
Alex: There's nothing in this message that seems to imply we're supposed to translate JSON into XML. We've already got ways to represent JSON in a pipeline, using c:data.
15:43:25 [Norm]
Some discussion.
15:43:57 [Norm]
Proposal: Reply that you already can include JSON as text using c:data. If you want conversion to XML, you'd need an extension step for that.
15:44:14 [Norm]
15:44:43 [Norm]
Some additional discussion of Henry's use case.
15:45:29 [Zakim]
15:45:43 [alexmilowski]
dropped call... :(
15:46:03 [Zakim]
15:46:42 [alexmilowski]
-i json -o /dev/null
15:47:38 [Norm]
Topic: 161 Concerns about forwards-compatible mode
15:50:30 [Norm]
Some discussion. General agreement that making the error dynamic rather than static would be very painful for implementors.
15:50:49 [Norm]
Alex: Changing the definition of a fundamental step is a bad idea
15:51:15 [Norm]
Norm: I think the rules we have are fine, the consequence of the rules is that for some changes, we'll introduce a new namespace or change the step name.
15:51:53 [Norm]
Alex: So that just means he has to rearrange the choose, right?
15:51:56 [Norm]
Norm: Right.
15:52:09 [Norm]
Alex: So the end result would be just a slightly different pipeline.
15:52:45 [Norm]
Proposal: Reject making the error dynamic, point out that the constraints are on future versions of steps with the same names, not future functionality.
15:53:03 [Norm]
15:53:37 [Norm]
Vojtech: I think there are two more questions. What happens if the schema changes so that some elements can contain new elements that weren't supported in V1.
15:53:55 [Norm]
Norm: Oh, so we add a p:xyz child of steps.
15:54:11 [Norm]
Vojtech: Not just steps, but also in p:serialization, for example.
15:54:20 [Norm]
...or in p:document we add a new child.
15:54:58 [Norm]
Norm: I guess we could say that those are ignored. I have some reservations, but I can't articulate them.
15:55:53 [Norm]
Vojtech: I can imagine cases where this could cause problems. What if we wanted to add a new kind of instruction like p:choose or p:try. If you ignore it then the pipeline might not make any sense anymore.
15:56:31 [Norm]
Norm: Right so if we add p:map-reduce ignoring it would be all you could do but it wouldn't be the right thing.
15:56:36 [Norm]
Mohamed: I think it has to fail.
15:56:58 [Norm]
Norm: If we add new language elements then you can't write backwards compabiel pipelines that use them.
15:58:04 [MoZ]
15:58:13 [Norm]
Vojtech: If you introduce a new builtin step then you could wrap it in a choose and use step available.
15:58:27 [Norm]
...No, that won't work because you have to know the signature.
15:58:47 [Norm]
Mohamed: The problem we have is that we have to compute a new dependency graph. Adding new builtin constructs just makes it not backwards compatible.
15:58:53 [Norm]
15:59:23 [Norm]
...I don't find it too restrictive, because when we provide a new instruction perhaps we can provide a wrapper step for it.
15:59:38 [Norm]
Proposal: No, we're not going to ignore unknown elements.
15:59:51 [Norm]
16:00:31 [Norm]
Norm: And the last one is covered by the fact taht you're not allowed to declare steps in the p: namespace unless the URI begins with the right prefix.
16:01:09 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
16:01:20 [Norm]
None heard.
16:01:51 [Zakim]
16:01:53 [Zakim]
16:01:53 [Zakim]
16:01:54 [Zakim]
16:01:57 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world visible
16:01:59 [Zakim]
16:02:01 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:02:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
16:03:12 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
16:04:28 [Zakim]
16:04:29 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:04:30 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.413.624.aaaa, PGrosso, Norm, +95247aabb, MoZ, Alex_Milows, Ht, Vojtech
16:04:41 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
17:33:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc