IRC log of xproc on 2010-01-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:59:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:59:50 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-xproc-irc
15:59:54 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be xproc
15:59:54 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
16:00:01 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
16:00:01 [Norm]
Date: 7 Jan 2010
16:00:01 [Norm]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/07-agenda
16:00:01 [Norm]
Meeting: 163
16:00:01 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
16:00:02 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
16:00:04 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
16:00:11 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:00:11 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:00:12 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
16:00:13 [Zakim]
+Ht
16:00:25 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
16:00:49 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
16:01:06 [Zakim]
+[ArborText]
16:01:16 [Zakim]
+Norm
16:02:34 [Zakim]
+Vojtech
16:02:38 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
16:04:06 [MoZ]
Zakim, what's the code?
16:04:06 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
16:04:19 [Zakim]
+MoZ
16:04:53 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
16:05:30 [Zakim]
+Alex_Milows
16:06:07 [Norm]
Happy New Year to all!
16:06:08 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:06:08 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/07-agenda
16:06:25 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:06:30 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
16:06:30 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes
16:07:10 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon, 14 Jan 2010?
16:07:35 [Norm]
Norm gives likely regrets; Henry to chair.
16:07:41 [Norm]
Henry gives regrets for 21 Jan
16:08:01 [Norm]
Vojtech gives regrets for 21 Jan
16:08:21 [Norm]
Topic: New Last Call WD published
16:08:38 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/
16:09:00 [Norm]
Norm: End of L/C is 2 Feb. I'll start a new comments list asap.
16:09:42 [Norm]
Topic: Creating MIME documents with p:http-request
16:09:46 [Norm]
s/MIME/MIME multipart/
16:10:19 [Norm]
Norm attempts to recount his experience.
16:12:17 [Norm]
Norm: The HTTP ApacheClient library doesn't appear to produce what we expect.
16:12:25 [Norm]
Vojtech: We build the multipart data ourselves.
16:12:38 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, that was my other thought.
16:13:26 [Norm]
Norm: Producing isn't to hard so maybe that's the right answer.
16:13:45 [Norm]
Henry: Library support for producing MIME multipart is somewhere between non-existant and broken
16:14:13 [Norm]
Alex: Content-disposition is the one we can't handle directly. That's an oversight on our part.
16:14:27 [Norm]
...Content-ID is for internal relationships. Content-disposition is for the receiver.
16:14:59 [Norm]
...I'm sending you a bunch of files, here are the names you should use; here are the dates you should use, etc.
16:15:30 [Norm]
...It's not a required header, so we could leave it out. But it makes sending a group of files really hard. The Content-disposition header is how the receiver knows what it should be.
16:16:35 [Norm]
Norm: You can construct the headers yourself, right?
16:16:40 [Norm]
Alex: No. We don't let you put headers in.
16:16:49 [Norm]
Norm: So you can't associate X-foo: with an arbitrary body part and that's ok?
16:16:57 [Norm]
Alex: I think it was the right choice when we did it.
16:18:04 [Norm]
Alex: I think it's a very rational position to take, the multipart spec doesn't encourage additional headers on individual bodies.
16:18:23 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/mid/28d56ece0912171510k4ce5e358g5a155bd7b0957a35@mail.gmail.com
16:20:03 [Norm]
Alex: We just missed one.
16:20:21 [Norm]
...We probably should have added a disposition attribute, but we just went back to last call.
16:20:41 [Norm]
...The receiver will just have to handle the fact that the sender doesn't provide filenames.
16:21:01 [Norm]
Norm: That clarifies things for me.
16:21:23 [Norm]
Vojtech: So what does content-disposition mean for the XProc processor itself?
16:23:09 [Norm]
Norm: Yeah, where do those headers go?
16:23:15 [Norm]
Alex: They fall on the floor.
16:25:39 [Norm]
Some discussion of how to deal with these.
16:26:07 [Norm]
Henry: I'd be happier with some form of extensible solution.
16:28:01 [Norm]
Some discussion of the modelling. The headers on c:multipart are for the multipart message.
16:29:56 [Norm]
Vojtech: If the attributes map to the headers, we should name them content-id, content-description, etc.
16:30:18 [Norm]
Alex: For additional headers, we'd have to have a story about how to create attributes for them.
16:31:38 [Norm]
Norm: I don't know if we should try to fix the general problem, or just deal with what we actually expect
16:31:55 [Norm]
Alex: We could add a disposition header today and leave adding a c:multipart-body to some future version.
16:32:26 [Norm]
Norm: Indeed. And if no one ever asks, we never have to do it.
16:34:43 [Norm]
Norm: So our options appear to be: (1) do nothing, (2) add a disposition attribute, (3) invent a more complex but extensible story
16:35:07 [Norm]
Zakim, who's here?
16:35:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ht, PGrosso, Norm, Vojtech, MoZ, Alex_Milows
16:35:08 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alexmilowski, MoZ, Vojtech, PGrosso, RRSAgent, Zakim, ht, Norm
16:36:25 [alexmilowski]
section 6.1 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2387
16:36:40 [Norm]
Straw poll: (2) gets 4 votes, (3) gets 2.
16:36:45 [Norm]
...(1) gets none.
16:38:03 [Norm]
Proposal: For V1, add a disposition attribute for specifying the content-disposition.
16:38:13 [Norm]
...to c:body
16:38:46 [Norm]
Henry/Vojtech: Do these make sense outside the multipart context?
16:39:34 [Norm]
Norm: I don't think it causes any harm to send the headers in the non-multipart case.
16:40:04 [Norm]
Alex: You can send any headers you want. I think the technical question is whether description and disposition set those headers.
16:40:23 [Norm]
Norm: I propose if you set the attribute, the header is sent, multipart or not.
16:40:47 [Norm]
Accepted. We'll add disposition.
16:40:57 [Norm]
Norm: Do we want to take up the question fo renaming these attributes?
16:41:01 [Norm]
s/fo/of/
16:41:27 [Norm]
Henry: No, because it's unnecessarily verbose.
16:41:28 [Norm]
Norm: ok
16:42:38 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to produce a new WD
16:42:55 [Norm]
s/WD/WD reflecting the new attribute./
16:43:05 [Norm]
Topic: Comments on the latest draft?
16:43:20 [Norm]
Norm: A few on the list, I'll generate a new status page as I said, any comments from WG members at the moment?
16:44:04 [Norm]
Vojtech: Currently we say that we use the XSLT Match Pattern for things like Viewport, but we don't say what version.
16:44:13 [Norm]
...The processor doesn't know which XSLT version to use.
16:46:11 [Norm]
Henry: I'd rather not put this in user control. I think our earlier decision this was the intersection was small. We should encourage implementors to use XSLT 2.0 if they support it and use 1.0 otherwise.
16:47:21 [Norm]
Vojtech: You can say xpath-version is 2.0 in a pipeline, but you can't do the same thing with match patterns.
16:47:49 [Norm]
Henry: I'd prefer to say that the xpath-version switch controls the match patterns as well.
16:48:10 [Norm]
Vojtech: What about XSLT 3.7 and there's no corresponding XPath version.
16:48:18 [Norm]
Alex: That's for V2 or implementation defined features.
16:48:31 [Norm]
...In V2 we can add a new function if we really need to.
16:50:18 [Norm]
Vojtech: If you bind them together, then you can't break that in V2. So that seems risky.
16:50:57 [Norm]
Norm: Good point. In that case, I think I'd prefer to say that you can't test it in V1 and it's impl defined.
16:51:00 [Zakim]
-Alex_Milows
16:51:35 [Norm]
Topic: Test suite progress?
16:51:41 [Norm]
Norm: I don't think there's a lot to say.
16:52:10 [Norm]
Norm: I haven't run against it recently.
16:52:18 [Norm]
Vojtech: Calumet is doing well.
16:52:50 [Norm]
...The multipart tests are also failing.
16:54:01 [Norm]
Some discussion of the fact that it's hard to generate identical results for the multipart tests.
16:55:08 [Norm]
Norm: If you think you pass, you're done. It may never be possible to get the test suite machinery to deal with those tests adequately.
16:55:18 [Norm]
Topic: Default processing model progress?
16:55:35 [Norm]
Henry: We've had some comments, but I haven't made any progress.
16:55:43 [Norm]
...Not likely to be ready for next week.
16:55:50 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
16:55:51 [Norm]
None heard.
16:55:55 [Norm]
Adjourned.
16:56:05 [Zakim]
-Norm
16:56:06 [Zakim]
-PGrosso
16:56:06 [Zakim]
-Vojtech
16:56:07 [Zakim]
-MoZ
16:56:08 [Zakim]
-Ht
16:56:08 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:56:08 [Norm]
rrsagnet, set logs world-visible
16:56:09 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ht, PGrosso, Norm, Vojtech, MoZ, Alex_Milows
16:56:16 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
16:56:19 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:56:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-xproc-minutes.html Norm
16:56:47 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
18:06:22 [htt]
htt has joined #xproc
18:31:05 [htt]
htt has joined #xproc
18:33:47 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
18:41:57 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc