See also: IRC log
<MoZ> Hi ht
<MoZ> there's really a Meeting ?
I Vojtech comes back, yes
<MoZ> s/I/If/ ?
yes
<scribe> Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
<scribe> ScribeNick: ht
<alexmilowski> *sigh*
<alexmilowski> fighting with the bridge
:-(
code is 97762
<alexmilowski> it just dropped me...
Mohamed, you joining us?
HST: Agenda approved as posted, with DefProcMod next steps added at the end
<MoZ> gonna join in 5 to 10 minutes max
HST: Minutes of 29 October and 2
November approved nem con.
... Next meeting 19 November
<Vojtech> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009Nov/0010.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009Nov/0023.html
HST: I proposed enumerating a set
of guaranteed system properties and functions
... anything else has implement-dependent results
TV: I'm happy with this -- messy in the spec., but works for implementors
HST: We'll return to this when MoZ joins
TV: I raised this, but realised
we had already dealt with it, and so I have no substantive
problem
... MZ then raised the question of whether it was misnamed - -
should it be called e.g. exclude-unused-prefixes
AM: Not clear it's really necessary, but I'm OK with that name change
TV: It's also in XSLT, what's it called
AM: The name in the agenda is
mistaken, its name in XProc today is
exclude-inline-prefixes
... In XSLT it's called exclude-result-prefixes
TV: Since we're not producing result trees, that doesn't really carry over
HST: I agree, that's a false friend
AM: e-i-p is used on p:pipeline, p:library, p:declare-step as well
TV: But it only applies to p:inline. . .
AM: We can't detect use of prefixes in content, so unused could be misleading
TV: Simplest thing is not to change name, but clarify what it means
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#p.inline
AM: What needs to be clarified?
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."
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"
AM: But the elements have their full names, so even that's not necessary
HST: But w/o it the serialisation will not know what prefixes to use
AM: If the prefix property is used, it can provide that info
HST: Where is that prop?
AM: On the element -- it's optional
HST: The motivation is the same as for XSLT -- avoid clutter in serialisation
AM: If you exclude a prefix that
is only used in content, you can shoot yourself in the
foot
... The serialiser will always be able to do the right thing --
quality of implementation -- saxon does the right thing
HST: Two reasons we did this, I think: [1] and [2]
AM: Note we don't actually talk about used or not
HST: Correct, and we shouldn't
TV: Agree we shouldn't
AM: So calling it -unused- would be misleading, because we don't impose that semantics
MZ: 1) Name is misleading, we
need to fix it; 2) You may need to use the prefix for QName in
content
... So you need to let in some prefixes on purpose
... So used/unused needs to be carefully considered
HST: I hear consensus that we are
not going to change what this attribute _means_
... I like the name as it is because of the scoping issue
AM: +0
MZ: +0
<alexmilowski> grrr...
RESOLUTION: No name change
<scribe> ACTION: HST to suggest wording to clarify the final sentence of section 5.12 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
MZ: Include an example of how this doesn't exclude unused prefixes
HST: I will consider that in my action
MZ: A good start, but not
sufficient?
... Consider 2.6.2.2 and 2.6.2.1
VT: That is covered in 3.9
MZ: Yes, I missed that
... OK, I can live with HST's proposal
... Ah, what about variables?
VT: Yes, we should add that
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
MZ: What about date-time ?
... XPath is required to give the same result every time you
call it -- could there be a problem here?
TV: XPath spec says current-date-time should give same result, but we don't guarantee that in XProc
HST: Whatever mechanisms XPath
impls use to guarantee should be independent of how they're
bein gused
... so should work for us too
... So if NW's happy, he will change the spec., and if he isn't
we'll hear from him
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
HST: One substantive
question
... What values do we use for fixup-xml-base and
fixup-xml-lang?
... We added these on request, because of the impact they were
having on validation
<MoZ> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#c.xinclude
<MoZ> http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#base
"An XInclude processor may, at user option, suppress xml:base and/or xml:lang fixup."
4.5
AM: I am happy for these to be 'on' for the default proc. mod
PG: So this sets something on the top of the bit you include
HST: Yes, regardless of how much of the target you include
PG: I agree that fixup should be the default
HST: I will only observe that that's what we thought for XInclude 1.0
PG: But the problem only arises if people are lazy
HST: I think it can arise without any foul on anyone's part
PG: Ah, yes, now I recall
... No problem with well-formedness
HST: Right
<MoZ> <p:for-each
PG: The fixup only occurs at the
infoset level
... and the problem arises when you serialise that and try to
validate the result
HST: Right
PG: The dpm is just for 'parsing'
an XML Document, right?
... Doesn't cover RT's question about how a browser processes
the output of XSLT
... AM said the DPM defines what the browsers will apply XSLT
_to_
... so that's when XInclude gets done
HST: This processing model is probabaly now misnamed
<MoZ> we should talk about processing sequence of document
HST: This is not a model which
itself imposes conformance requirements anywhere in the XML
stack
... rather it defines a _term_ which other _specs_ can now use,
to mandate the processing defined
PG: We need to come back to this
HST: We will
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/I/If/ ? Succeeded: s/sentence/sentence of section 5.12/ Succeeded: s/si/is/ Found Scribe: Henry S. Thompson Found ScribeNick: ht Default Present: PGrosso, Ht, Vojtech, Alex_Milows, MoZ Present: PGrosso Ht Vojtech Alex_Milows MoZ Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-agenda.html Got date from IRC log name: 12 Nov 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-xproc-minutes.html People with action items: hst[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]