IRC log of xproc on 2010-04-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:56:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-irc
14:56:56 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:56:56 [Norm]
Date: 8 Apr 2010
14:56:56 [Norm]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-agenda
14:56:56 [Norm]
Meeting: 170
14:56:56 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:56:57 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:56:59 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:57:38 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
14:57:53 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
14:58:06 [MoZ]
Zakim, it will be xproc
14:58:08 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'it will be xproc', MoZ
14:58:23 [MoZ]
Zakim, this is xproc
14:58:23 [Zakim]
MoZ, I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be xproc".
14:58:38 [MoZ]
Zakim, this will be xproc
14:58:38 [Zakim]
ok, MoZ; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
14:58:43 [MoZ]
Zakim, code?
14:58:43 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
14:59:29 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
14:59:37 [Zakim]
+Jeroen
14:59:49 [Vojtech]
Zakim, Jeroen is Vojtech
14:59:49 [Zakim]
+Vojtech; got it
15:01:00 [Zakim]
+MoZ
15:01:01 [Norm]
be there in a moment
15:01:43 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:01:56 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:01:58 [Zakim]
+Ht
15:02:47 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
15:02:58 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-minutes.html#item04
15:03:09 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/06-minutes.html#item08
15:03:44 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
15:03:44 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Vojtech, MoZ, Ht
15:03:46 [Zakim]
On IRC I see MoZ, Vojtech, RRSAgent, Zakim, ht, Norm, caribou, Liam
15:03:49 [Norm]
Regrets: Paul
15:04:03 [Zakim]
+??P6
15:04:27 [ht]
zakim, ? is Alex Milowski
15:04:27 [Zakim]
I don't understand '? is Alex Milowski', ht
15:04:40 [Zakim]
+Norm
15:04:46 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:04:52 [ht]
zakim, ? is Ale
15:04:52 [Zakim]
+Ale; got it
15:05:08 [ht]
zakim, who's here?
15:05:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Vojtech, MoZ, Ht, Ale, Norm
15:05:12 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alexmilowski, MoZ, Vojtech, RRSAgent, Zakim, ht, Norm, caribou, Liam
15:05:21 [ht]
zakim, Ale is alexmilowski
15:05:21 [Zakim]
+alexmilowski; got it
15:05:40 [Norm]
Present: Mohamed, Vojtech, Henry, Norm, Alex
15:05:50 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:05:50 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-agenda
15:06:18 [Norm]
Mohamed: Don't we get to see comments?
15:06:30 [Norm]
Norm: Not until the review is over.
15:07:03 [Norm]
Henry: Right. But it's not too late to ask your AC friends to vote!
15:07:15 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xproc/results
15:07:47 [Norm]
[A member-only link]
15:08:48 [Norm]
Henry: It would be good to get some more results to help Ian with the publicity
15:09:25 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:09:25 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/25-minutes
15:09:38 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:09:48 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon, 15 Apr 2010?
15:10:13 [Norm]
Mohamed gives regrets.
15:10:31 [Norm]
Topic: Review of the Default XML Processing Model
15:11:26 [Norm]
Henry: So, Norm and I cooked up this draft and it's received some internal review and I showed it to the TAG
15:11:34 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
15:11:38 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
15:11:55 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-minutes.html#item04
15:12:09 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/06-minutes.html#item08
15:13:51 [Norm]
Henry: XProc discussions focussed on two questions: XInclude fixup, which we decided we wanted to keep, and given that we're no longer talking about this as a default, but rather we're presenting it as "this is something you can refer to". It's not a default, but a sort of preferred or baseline processing model.
15:14:04 [Norm]
...There was some suggestion that we ought to change its name before we publish it.
15:14:13 [Zakim]
+ +49.238.aaaa
15:14:38 [Norm]
Henry: The TAG also raised that question. DanC went even further and said "In order to avoid anyone thinking this was the one true model", why don't you define another one.
15:14:45 [Norm]
...I thought that was a suggestion at least worth considering.
15:14:59 [Norm]
...TimBL isn't happy, but I'm not sure we can do anything to make him happy.
15:15:30 [Norm]
...You may recall that the other example that I often referred to was decryption/signature checking. When I returned to this this autumn, I concluded that it didn't make any sense.
15:16:03 [Norm]
...Because 9900/10000 times, decryption involves user interaction. It's bad form to include the keys in a message so that decryption could proceed automatically.
15:16:26 [Norm]
...So with some reluctance, I've taken it out and TimBL would like us to address it.
15:16:56 [Norm]
Henry: Aside from changing the name, and perhaps defining a second model, I think we're ready to ask for FPWD
15:17:05 [Norm]
Alex: Does it make any sense to have more than one model in this document?
15:17:32 [Norm]
...There are some obvious variants that are the next step, like validation.
15:18:07 [Norm]
Henry: The other alternative which I have mixed feelings about is to go the other direction: give a name to the bare minimum.
15:18:17 [Norm]
...No reading of the external subset, no XInclude.
15:19:16 [Norm]
Norm: Does anyone know if you can tell Xerces *not* to read the external subset.
15:19:18 [Norm]
Henry: I don't know.
15:19:21 [Norm]
Alex: Does it matter?
15:19:28 [MoZ]
http://xerces.apache.org/xerces-j/features.html
15:19:46 [Norm]
Norm: If modern parsers don't let you do it, then I'm not sure it's good to give it a name.
15:19:58 [Norm]
Henry: I'm of two minds: I don't want to encourage folks to do it, but it is spec-compliant.
15:20:44 [alexmilowski]
http://xerces.apache.org/xerces-j/features.html
15:20:49 [Norm]
Norm: If we want to go that direction, I'd be inclined to make XInclude optional. I don't really want to encourage application authors to do less than read the external subset.
15:21:01 [alexmilowski]
http://apache.org/xml/features/nonvalidating/load-external-dtd set to false
15:21:22 [Norm]
Henry: I'd be inclined to keep the first two and get rid of the last two.
15:21:46 [Norm]
Norm: I'd be inclined to keep the first three and lose the last one. Surely xml:id is free?
15:22:03 [Norm]
Henry: I guess, but see your point about whether all parsers support xml:id
15:22:49 [Norm]
Regrets: Paul, Murray
15:23:01 [Norm]
Henry: I think, in fact, Xerces rejected a patch to support xml:id
15:23:05 [Norm]
Vojtech: Yes, I think that's right.
15:23:23 [MoZ]
https://cwiki.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1113
15:24:04 [Vojtech]
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1113
15:25:06 [Norm]
Norm: So the two questions are, do we want to provide more than one, and what should we call the document.
15:25:39 [Norm]
Norm: I guess if we supplied more than one, then something like "Parsing Profiles for XML" might work.
15:26:09 [Norm]
Henry: I still think "processing model" is useful in the title.
15:26:39 [MoZ]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-xml-proc
15:26:41 [Norm]
Alex: Why not The Default XML Pipeline?
15:26:53 [Norm]
Henry: I was thinking we should use the terminology that the language itself uses.
15:27:22 [Norm]
Henry: XML Processor Profiles or something like that.
15:27:32 [MoZ]
+1
15:27:42 [Norm]
Norm: I guess that works for me, though I worry that "profiles" is sort of overloaded these days.
15:28:06 [MoZ]
XML Processor Level à la CSS
15:28:42 [Norm]
Norm: If we do more than one, then maybe "XML Processing Models" works
15:29:21 [Norm]
Henry: Let's not hold up the discussion for any more discussions about naming.
15:29:42 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry to fix typo in the bibliography where XML5e is referred to as XML4e
15:30:31 [Norm]
Henry: We've discussed at some length doing less as an alternative, there's also a doing more alternative. (1) Leaving it as it is, vs. (2) one or more w/o prejudice to which one.
15:31:27 [Norm]
(1): 0, (2): 4
15:31:48 [MoZ]
2 +1
15:32:22 [Norm]
Alex: Maybe one way to spin this is to divide the document into different kinds of user agents: "web browsers", "web service", "validating authoring tool", etc.
15:33:29 [Norm]
Norm: It's an interesting idea, but are we sure it breaks down along these lines?
15:34:04 [Norm]
Alex: We could qualify it with validation, etc.
15:34:20 [Norm]
...The problem with the document is that it's the "default" model. For whom?
15:34:41 [Norm]
Henry: That's why I think DanC's suggestion is a good one. It'll make the document more useful and more used if we identify several points along the continuum.
15:34:57 [Norm]
Alex: We would just be providing context.
15:35:07 [Norm]
Henry: I'm a little nervous about that. It's likely to only get us enemies.
15:35:34 [Norm]
Norm: I think I'd prefer to define what the pipelines are and let application designers decide which ones to use.
15:35:47 [Norm]
Vojtech: But we have to give them fixed names, so that other specs can point to them.
15:35:50 [Norm]
Norm: Absolutely
15:36:06 [Norm]
Henry: I'm thinking "minimal", "basic", and "validating"
15:36:36 [Norm]
Vojtech: I think they all have to be minimal.
15:37:36 [Norm]
Henry: minimal, the one we have now that's recommended, and one more maybe that does validation.
15:37:49 [Norm]
Vojtech: So folks will add to them. We should have a really minimal one.
15:39:16 [Norm]
Norm: The one dividing line I see is, that there's no point defining pipelines that require additional parameters/options.
15:39:53 [Norm]
Norm: So no XSLT or RELAX NG validation.
15:40:31 [Norm]
Henry: I thought about xml-model and Richard raised xml-stylesheet. They are, after all processing instructions and we're talking about processing models.
15:40:46 [Zakim]
-caribou
15:40:53 [Norm]
Henry: I guess the way to address that is with a few sentences that address those PIs.
15:41:16 [Zakim]
+caribou
15:42:33 [Norm]
Proposal: Let's try to get this to FPWD. I propose we change the name (editor's discretion) and have minimal and basic models.
15:43:15 [Norm]
Norm: Where minimal does 1, 2, and maybe 3. Basic is what we have now.
15:43:30 [Norm]
Alex: So we're not going to say anything about the xml-stylesheet PIs?
15:43:57 [Norm]
...Browsers do that, having it codified as a basic option would be good.
15:44:08 [Norm]
Henry: I think you may very well be right, but I'd like to think about it a bit.
15:44:42 [Norm]
Alex: It would be great to have something to point to that we could say browsers *should* do.
15:44:50 [Norm]
Henry: I see that, but let's get it out the door first.
15:45:36 [Norm]
Henry: What should the short name be?
15:45:40 [MoZ]
procmodel
15:46:07 [caribou]
I thought it would avoid model in the shortname?
15:46:25 [Norm]
Norm: Let's see what title we get and then figure it out.
15:46:58 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry+Norm to have the new draft ready for discussion next week.
15:47:17 [ht]
Carine, I agree wrt model
15:48:32 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:48:50 [Norm]
Alex: Let's get AC reps to vote!
15:50:26 [Norm]
Henry: I think we'll get to Rec w/o any difficulty even if we don't get a lot more votes.
15:50:42 [Norm]
Norm: I think it just makes the press release, media fanfair easier if we have more votes.
15:51:07 [Norm]
Adjourned.
15:51:10 [Zakim]
-Norm
15:51:12 [Zakim]
-Vojtech
15:51:14 [Zakim]
-alexmilowski
15:51:15 [Zakim]
-Ht
15:51:15 [Zakim]
-MoZ
15:51:15 [Zakim]
-caribou
15:51:16 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:51:18 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
15:51:18 [Zakim]
Attendees were Vojtech, MoZ, Ht, Norm, alexmilowski, +49.238.aaaa, caribou
15:51:22 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:51:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html Norm
17:34:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
18:18:26 [Norm]
rrsagent, bye
18:18:26 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-actions.rdf :
18:18:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Henry to fix typo in the bibliography where XML5e is referred to as XML4e [1]
18:18:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-irc#T15-29-42
18:18:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Henry+Norm to have the new draft ready for discussion next week. [2]
18:18:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-irc#T15-46-58