15:00:26 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 15:00:26 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-xproc-irc 15:00:32 Zakim has joined #xproc 15:00:54 zakim, this will be xproc 15:00:59 PGrosso has joined #xproc 15:01:16 ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now 15:01:41 ht has joined #xproc 15:01:46 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 15:01:48 +??P27 15:01:50 +[ArborText] 15:01:57 zakim, please call ht-781 15:02:02 ok, ht; the call is being made 15:02:04 +Ht 15:02:38 +Norm 15:02:51 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 15:02:51 Date: 15 Apr 2010 15:02:51 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-agenda 15:02:51 Meeting: 171 15:02:51 Chair: Norm 15:02:52 Scribe: Norm 15:02:54 ScribeNick: Norm 15:04:00 Vojtech has joined #xproc 15:04:24 +Murray_Maloney 15:04:51 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:05:16 +Vojtech 15:05:18 On the phone I see PGrosso, alexmilowski, Ht, Norm, Murray_Maloney, Vojtech 15:06:04 Present: Paul, Alex, Henry, Norm, Murray, Vojtech 15:06:08 Regrets: Mohamed 15:06:16 Topic: Accept this agenda? 15:06:16 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-agenda 15:06:20 Accepted. 15:06:26 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 15:06:26 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/08-minutes 15:06:29 Accepted. 15:06:35 Topic: Next meeting: telcon, 22 Apr 2010? 15:06:44 No regrets heard. 15:06:52 Topic: Status update on PR request 15:07:48 Norm: Voting closes today. We've got 12 votes in favor, 1 with a change (the bug we want to fix) and 2 explicit abstentions. 15:08:39 Henry: I hope I did what was needed. 15:08:46 Norm: Yes. Looks fine to me, thanks Henry 15:08:58 -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xproc/results 15:09:11 Topic: The default XML processing model 15:10:49 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html 15:11:35 Henry: I basically did what we said. We agreed to two changes. 15:12:04 ...Make a new title, and this really is processor profiles, so I chose "XML processor profiles". The XML spec calls what we're talking about "an XML processor". 15:12:10 ...I'm not wedded to the name. 15:12:31 ...The other thing I did was add another profile. 15:12:58 ...I tried to add another profile, to handle xml-stylesheet, but discovered that it was quite difficult. 15:13:37 ...What the stylesheet PI does is lay off responsibility to other specs. 15:14:19 Henry: I've reduced my expectations to just trying to get the correct infoset (or data model of choice). Once youv'e applied a stylesheet, or a GRDDL, it's not really "this" document anymore. 15:14:51 ...My realizaation is that what I wanted to do with this spec was focus on getting the correct infoset. The fact that I couldn't do the stylesheet story in this spec didn't bother me as much as I thought it would. 15:15:38 ...I also had the minor insight that if I was writing the media type registration for, say text/css, I might say something about the processing model profile but that would be in my spec, not in this spec. 15:16:23 Murray: Are there two or three profiles? 15:16:38 Henry: Two, and a discussion of what might be in some other profile. 15:17:08 Murray: I'm sort of sympathetic to the ideas that Henry expressed. I wonder if Paul agrees? 15:17:50 Paul: We can write a pipeline that tells you what to do with an XML document and a stylesheet PI, right? 15:18:05 Norm: Well, for some PIs. For an XSL stylesheet, yes, but for CSS, it's less clear. 15:18:52 Murray: You can load the pipeline into XSL or set a flag to indicate that it was amenable for XSL processing. 15:19:03 Norm: Yes, you could set a variable or option. 15:19:29 Murray: I thought one of the things you could do with the processing model is determine what kind of processing it's eligable for. 15:19:45 ...So it might say that XSL was possible, or GRDDL, or other things. 15:20:06 Murray is enumerating some things of the sort which I called in a TAG musing "elaboration signals" -- things which signal the possibility of further processing 15:20:35 ... the use of certain elements from the XML Encryption namespace is another one 15:20:38 Murray: Would it be useful to write that pipeline? 15:21:12 Henry: Two years ago, when I was trying to get my head around this with my TAG hat on, I produced the elaborated infoset document. 15:21:28 ...There's a notion in that which I think I called "elaboration signals". Murray's just reconstructed that idea. 15:21:45 ...You've started to list the things that might be in the document that are signals for future processing. For example, encryption. 15:22:14 Henry: Yes, I think that's a useful idea. I've never been able to get anywhere beyond the observation that there are these things. 15:22:45 ...It's always seemed to be the case that it's human beings that make the decision about what to do. 15:23:11 Murray: From a QA perspective: the delta between what could be done and what was actually done could be interesting and useful. 15:24:07 ...What Henry said earlier about the fact that what XSLT creates for styling is another document, with GRDDL, I guess the same thing is true. 15:24:23 ...But in the GRDDL case, it's asserted to be a faithful rendition of the information in this document. 15:25:13 ...Another thing about the infoset with respect to GRDDL is that GRDDL decided that you might not have expanded entities, or exposed fixed attributes, etc. 15:25:50 Henry: My inclination is not to bless that. Just because they did it doesn't mean we should make it easy. 15:26:09 ...They're going below what we (I) think is the minimum. 15:26:27 Murray: We could give it a name and then explain why you shouldn't use it. 15:29:05 Norm: My concern is that you can't process documents that contain unexpanded entity references. Or documents that aren't namespace well-formed for that matter. 15:30:35 Some further discussion about what the minimum profile means: it expands all entities, fills in attribute default values, etc. 15:30:50 Henry: On a completely different topic, what should our short name be? 15:31:10 Henry: I'm tempted by xprof, but I think the linguistic similarity to 'xproc' is too confusing. 15:31:31 Paul: I suggested 'xml-proc-prof'. An abbreviation of processing profile. 15:31:50 Norm: How about 'xmlprofiles' 15:31:56 xmlpp 15:32:03 Murray: It's not an XML profile, it's an XML processing profile. 15:32:18 ...And why profile not model? 15:32:53 Henry: My reasoning was that when a spec gives you a set of choices, which is what the XML spec does, then a particular set of values for those choices is what I undersatnd is meant by the word "profile" 15:33:16 ...Model is just one of those generic words that's lost all meaning. What would it mean not to be a model? It's just a noun to put after processor. 15:34:35 Norm: Assuming we clean up the editorial issues, would anyone object to publishing this as the first public working draft? 15:35:12 Alex: I really wonder about the xml stylesheet PI issue. I would really like to say something about what browsers do, but maybe that's more than we can achieve. 15:35:19 Murray: Browsers don't do any of this, do they? 15:35:30 Alex: Web browsers do more-or-less apply the XML stylesheet PI. 15:38:27 Some wandering discussion of user agents, media types, stylesheets, validation, etc. 15:39:35 Alex: If we had a processor profile for "apply style" then what the user agent does could be described as "select a stylesheet, through some implementation defined means" then do the "apply stylesheet" profile. 15:40:15 Henry: What I'd like to do is take this document and see if we can get other specs to reference it: HTML5, xxx+XML media types, etc. 15:40:25 Alex: I don't disagree, I just don't know if section 4 needs some tweaking. 15:42:49 Norm: I'd like it out sooner and smaller so we can see what way the community goes with it. 15:43:02 ... The community might love it or hate it and I can't predict which. 15:44:31 Murray: I'd like to publish this soon. I'd like to see more detail in it about what we do with the infoset at each step in the process. 15:45:02 ...Maybe with a catalog of infoset changes. And I wonder if as part of this process we wouldn't discover new info items to add to the infoset. 15:45:17 ...Perhaps we discover that we set particular flags for every pipeline, shouldn't they just be in the infoset. 15:46:08 Norm: Does anyone object to making more-or-less this document our FPWD? 15:46:30 Murray: How about adding a paragraph or two about XML functions and how this document doesn't do that. 15:47:01 No objections heard. 15:47:17 Norm: Now we need a short name. 15:48:01 ht has joined #xproc 15:48:03 Some proposals: xml-proc-prof, xppf, 15:48:36 xml-processor-profiles 15:48:43 xmlprocessorpofiles 15:48:52 xml-processing-best-practices 15:49:01 xml-proc-profiles 15:49:27 xpm 15:50:36 Murray/Henry wrangle a little bit over the title again "profile" vs "model" 15:51:49 Henry: My focus here is what are the invariants that you can count on in the information you get, not how you get it. 15:51:56 ...I don't see this as a collection of pipelines 15:54:25 "Pipelines for XML Processors" :) 15:54:30 xproc-profiles 15:54:38 profiles-of-xml 15:54:52 xmlp? 15:56:13 I'm liking xml-proc-profiles 15:56:25 xml-proc-profiles 15:56:45 Proposal: We use the short name xml-proc-profiles 15:56:46 the short name most likely will contain 'xml' and 'processing', the question is about 'model' and 'profile' - so I wouldn't include it 15:58:00 Accepted. 15:59:00 Henry: I say we get this out by Monday and if no one objects before Wednesday then we go forward. 15:59:12 Norm: Anyone object to that? 15:59:14 None heard. 15:59:46 Topic: Any other business? 16:00:18 Gotta run. Bye. 16:00:20 None heard. 16:00:22 -Murray_Maloney 16:00:23 -alexmilowski 16:00:23 -PGrosso 16:00:23 Adjourned 16:00:24 -Vojtech 16:00:24 -Ht 16:00:27 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 16:00:31 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:00:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-xproc-minutes.html Norm 16:00:35 -Norm 16:00:36 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 16:00:37 Attendees were PGrosso, Ht, alexmilowski, Norm, Murray_Maloney, Vojtech 16:01:26 PGrosso has left #xproc 17:21:53 Zakim has left #xproc 17:35:50 rrsagent, bye 17:35:50 I see no action items