IRC log of xproc on 2009-11-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:41:57 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:41:57 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-xproc-irc
15:43:20 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:43:44 [MoZ]
Hi ht
15:43:50 [MoZ]
there's really a Meeting ?
15:44:06 [ht]
I Vojtech comes back, yes
15:44:31 [MoZ]
s/I/If/ ?
15:56:10 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:57:19 [ht]
yes
16:00:13 [MoZ]
Zakim, what's the code?
16:00:13 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
16:00:25 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
16:00:32 [Zakim]
+[ArborText]
16:01:06 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:01:06 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:01:07 [Zakim]
-PGrosso
16:01:07 [Zakim]
+PGrosso
16:01:09 [Zakim]
+Ht
16:01:30 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
16:02:15 [Zakim]
+Vojtech
16:02:36 [ht]
Meeting: XProc WG telcon
16:02:52 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
16:02:55 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
16:03:05 [ht]
Chair: Henry S. Thompson (pro tem)
16:03:12 [ht]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-agenda.html
16:03:16 [alexmilowski]
*sigh*
16:03:22 [alexmilowski]
fighting with the bridge
16:03:26 [ht]
:-(
16:03:38 [ht]
code is 97762
16:03:47 [alexmilowski]
it just dropped me...
16:03:54 [ht]
Mohamed, you joining us?
16:03:58 [Zakim]
+Alex_Milows
16:06:28 [ht]
HST: Agenda approved as posted, with DefProcMod next steps added at the end
16:07:26 [MoZ]
gonna join in 5 to 10 minutes max
16:07:52 [ht]
HST: Minutes of 29 October and 2 November approved nem con.
16:08:13 [ht]
HST: Next meeting 19 November
16:08:39 [ht]
Topic: What can be used in [p:]use-when?
16:10:54 [Vojtech]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009Nov/0010.html
16:10:58 [ht]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009Nov/0023.html
16:13:16 [ht]
HST: I proposed enumerating a set of guaranteed system properties and functions
16:13:27 [ht]
... anything else has implement-dependent results
16:14:12 [ht]
TV: I'm happy with this -- messy in the spec., but works for implementors
16:14:24 [ht]
HST: We'll return to this when MoZ joins
16:14:47 [ht]
Topic: exclude-result-prefixes -- name and spec. correct?
16:15:13 [ht]
TV: I raised this, but realised we had already dealt with it, and so I have no substantive problem
16:15:47 [ht]
... MZ then raised the question of whether it was misnamed - - should it be called e.g. exclude-unused-prefixes
16:16:11 [ht]
AM: Not clear it's really necessary, but I'm OK with that name change
16:16:28 [ht]
TV: It's also in XSLT, what's it called
16:17:03 [ht]
AM: The name in the agenda is mistaken, its name in XProc today is exclude-inline-prefixes
16:17:25 [ht]
AM: In XSLT it's called exclude-result-prefixes
16:17:49 [ht]
TV: Since we're not producing result trees, that doesn't really carry over
16:17:59 [ht]
HST: I agree, that's a false friend
16:18:50 [ht]
AM: e-i-p is used on p:pipeline, p:library, p:declare-step as well
16:19:00 [ht]
TV: But it only applies to p:inline. . .
16:19:25 [ht]
AM: We can't detect use of prefixes in content, so unused could be misleading
16:19:53 [ht]
TV: Simplest thing is not to change name, but clarify what it means
16:20:47 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#p.inline
16:20:56 [ht]
AM: What needs to be clarified?
16:22:29 [Zakim]
+MoZ
16:23:24 [ht]
TV: We need to maybe expand on the very last sentence: "The XProc processor must include all in-scope prefixes that are not explicitly excluded."
16:24:01 [ht]
HST: It's not really right as it stands -- should be something like "must include in in-scope namespaces a namespace binding for every inscope-namespace"
16:24:27 [ht]
AM: But the elements have their full names, so even that's not necessary
16:24:42 [ht]
HST: But w/o it the serialisation will not know what prefixes to use
16:25:20 [ht]
AM: If the prefix property is used, it can provide that info
16:25:48 [ht]
HST: Where is that prop?
16:25:54 [ht]
AM: On the element -- it's optional
16:26:35 [ht]
HST: The motivation is the same as for XSLT -- avoid clutter in serialisation
16:26:56 [ht]
AM: If you exclude a prefix that is only used in content, you can shoot yourself in the foot
16:27:30 [ht]
AM: The serialiser will always be able to do the right thing -- quality of implementation -- saxon does the right thing
16:29:22 [ht]
HST: Two reasons we did this, I think: [1] and [2]
16:29:32 [ht]
AM: Note we don't actually talk about used or not
16:29:37 [ht]
HST: Correct, and we shouldn't
16:29:44 [ht]
TV: Agree we shouldn't
16:30:10 [ht]
AM: So calling it -unused- would be misleading, because we don't impose that semantics
16:30:12 [MoZ]
q+
16:31:04 [ht]
MZ: 1) Name is misleading, we need to fix it; 2) You may need to use the prefix for QName in content
16:31:17 [ht]
... So you need to let in some prefixes on purpose
16:31:34 [ht]
... So used/unused needs to be carefully considered
16:32:28 [ht]
HST: I hear consensus that we are not going to change what this attribute _means_
16:32:38 [MoZ]
ack me
16:34:01 [ht]
HST: I like the name as it is because of the scoping issue
16:34:11 [ht]
AM: +0
16:34:57 [Zakim]
-Alex_Milows
16:35:00 [ht]
MZ: +0
16:35:00 [alexmilowski]
grrr...
16:35:05 [ht]
RESOLVED: No name change
16:35:34 [Zakim]
+Alex_Milows
16:35:38 [ht]
ACTION: HST to suggest wording to clarify the final sentence
16:35:59 [ht]
s/sentence/sentence of section 5.12
16:36:23 [ht]
MZ: Include an example of how this doesn't exclude unused prefixes
16:36:45 [ht]
HST: I will consider that in my action
16:37:10 [ht]
Topic: Picking up use-when again
16:39:11 [ht]
MZ: A good start, but not sufficient?
16:39:44 [ht]
... Consider 2.6.2.2 and 2.6.2.1
16:39:55 [ht]
zakim, disconnect ht
16:39:55 [Zakim]
Ht is being disconnected
16:39:56 [Zakim]
-Ht
16:40:05 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:40:05 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:40:06 [Zakim]
+Ht
16:41:48 [ht]
VT: That is covered in 3.9
16:41:54 [ht]
MZ: Yes, I missed that
16:42:02 [ht]
MZ: OK, I can live with HST's proposal
16:42:57 [ht]
MZ: Ah, what about variables?
16:43:02 [ht]
VT: Yes, we should add that
16:44:01 [ht]
RESOLVED (tentative, pending NW agreement): Adopt HST's proposal from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009Nov/0023.html and adding no variable bindings to the list in 3.9 of things which are empty/not there
16:44:12 [ht]
MZ: What about date-time ?
16:44:42 [ht]
... XPath is required to give the same result every time you call it -- could there be a problem here?
16:45:46 [ht]
TV: XPath spec says current-date-time should give same result, but we don't guarantee that in XProc
16:46:23 [ht]
HST: Whatever mechanisms XPath impls use to guarantee should be independent of how they're bein gused
16:46:30 [ht]
... so should work for us too
16:47:11 [ht]
HST: So if NW's happy, he will change the spec., and if he isn't we'll hear from him
16:47:21 [ht]
Topic: Default XML Processing Model draft
16:47:33 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
16:47:56 [ht]
HST: One substantive question
16:48:33 [ht]
... What values do we use for fixup-xml-base and fixup-xml-lang?
16:49:23 [ht]
... We added these on request, because of the impact they were having on validation
16:49:35 [MoZ]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#c.xinclude
16:51:13 [MoZ]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#base
16:51:58 [ht]
"An XInclude processor may, at user option, suppress xml:base and/or xml:lang fixup."
16:52:00 [ht]
4.5
16:53:36 [ht]
AM: I am happy for these to be 'on' for the default proc. mod
16:54:28 [ht]
PG: So this sets something on the top of the bit you include
16:54:47 [ht]
HST: Yes, regardless of how much of the target you include
16:54:59 [ht]
PG: I agree that fixup should be the default
16:55:18 [ht]
HST: I will only observe that that's what we thought for XInclude 1.0
16:56:41 [ht]
PG: But the problem only arises if people are lazy
16:56:59 [ht]
HST: I think it can arise without any foul on anyone's part
16:57:18 [ht]
PG: Ah, yes, now I recall
16:57:37 [ht]
PG: No problem with well-formedness
16:57:39 [ht]
HST: Right
16:58:22 [MoZ]
<p:for-each
16:58:24 [ht]
PG: The fixup only occurs at the infoset level
16:58:40 [ht]
... and the problem arises when you serialise that and try to validate the result
16:58:43 [ht]
HST: Right
16:59:09 [ht]
PG: The dpm is just for 'parsing' an XML Document, right?
16:59:30 [ht]
... Doesn't cover RT's question about how a browser processes the output of XSLT
17:00:23 [ht]
PG: AM said the DPM defines what the browsers will apply XSLT _to_
17:00:34 [ht]
... so that's when XInclude gets done
17:00:49 [ht]
HST: This processing model si probabaly now misnamed
17:01:08 [PGrosso]
s/si/is/
17:02:39 [Zakim]
-PGrosso
17:02:40 [MoZ]
we should talk about processing sequence of document
17:02:40 [Zakim]
-Ht
17:02:42 [Zakim]
-Vojtech
17:02:43 [Zakim]
-Alex_Milows
17:02:47 [Zakim]
-MoZ
17:02:49 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
17:02:50 [Zakim]
Attendees were PGrosso, Ht, Vojtech, Alex_Milows, MoZ
17:03:12 [ht]
HST: This is not a model which itself imposes conformance requirements anywhere in the XML stack
17:03:35 [ht]
... rather it defines a _term_ which other _specs_ can now use, to mandate the processing defined
17:03:42 [ht]
PG: We need to come back to this
17:03:46 [ht]
HST: We will
17:03:59 [ht]
RRSAgent, make logs world-visible
17:04:05 [ht]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:04:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-xproc-minutes.html ht
17:05:10 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
19:00:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc