IRC log of xproc on 2010-05-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:04:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:04:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-xproc-irc
15:04:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #xproc
15:04:43 [Norm]
zakim, this is xproc
15:05:08 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; that matches XML_PMWG()11:00AM
15:05:15 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
15:05:17 [Zakim]
+Norm
15:05:18 [Zakim]
-Norm
15:05:20 [Zakim]
+Norm
15:05:24 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P40, Norm
15:05:38 [Norm]
zakim, alexmilowski is ?
15:05:46 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, alexmilowski, Vojtech, Norm, Liam, caribou
15:05:54 [Zakim]
+Jeroen
15:06:00 [Norm]
zakim, jeroen is Vojtech
15:06:03 [Vojtech]
zakim, Jeroen is Vojtech
15:06:14 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not understand your question
15:06:28 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
15:06:31 [Zakim]
+Vojtech; got it
15:06:39 [Zakim]
sorry, Vojtech, I do not recognize a party named 'Jeroen'
15:06:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P40, Norm, Vojtech
15:06:53 [Norm]
zakim, ??P40 is alexmilowski
15:06:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, alexmilowski, Vojtech, Norm, Liam, caribou
15:07:00 [Zakim]
+alexmilowski; got it
15:07:08 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
15:07:21 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:07:21 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:07:23 [Zakim]
+Ht
15:07:53 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:07:58 [Norm]
Date: 27 May 2010
15:08:03 [Norm]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/05/27-agenda
15:08:06 [Norm]
Meeting: 172
15:08:12 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:08:17 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:08:20 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:08:31 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:08:31 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/05/27-agenda
15:08:37 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:08:53 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:08:53 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-minutes
15:08:57 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:09:07 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon, 3 June 2010?
15:09:10 [Norm]
Regrets: Paul
15:09:15 [Norm]
Paul gives regrets for 3 June
15:09:31 [Norm]
Topic: Administrivia
15:09:38 [Norm]
Yay us! XProc is a W3C Recommendation!
15:09:59 [Norm]
Topic: Review comments on XML processor profiles
15:10:07 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/05/wd-comments/
15:11:07 [Norm]
Comment 1, white space handling
15:11:37 [Norm]
Norm: I'm inclined to agree with David that it would be nice, but I'm not sure what we can say.
15:13:20 [Norm]
Henry: Yes, there's a constant grumbling about whitespace
15:14:48 [Norm]
Henry: Can a non-validating but doctype reading processor notice what elements have element only content and ignore whitespace?
15:14:55 [Norm]
Norm: No, I don't think that's conformant.
15:15:45 [Norm]
Norm: From 2.10 in the XML Rec: An XML processor MUST always pass all characters in a document that are not markup through to the application.
15:16:22 [Norm]
Norm: As far as I can tell, we don't give any processor any leeway to discard whitespace.
15:16:33 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#sec-white-space
15:18:15 [Norm]
Henry: Is it conformant to the XML specification for a non-validating processor to report element-content-whitespace? I see nothing that forbids it.
15:19:40 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
15:20:08 [Norm]
Alex: So does Saxon throw away element content whitespace?
15:20:34 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, I think it does if you perform DTD validation. But that's not the XProc default and it only applies to DTD validation.
15:21:12 [Norm]
Norm: I'm not sure what we can do to help.
15:22:15 [Norm]
Henry: A significant goal of our spec is to improve interoperability. David points out that we don't say.
15:22:44 [Norm]
Norm: Is a minimal processor or a basic processor allowed to do DTD validation?
15:22:58 [Norm]
Henry: We haven't answered that question.
15:23:50 [Norm]
Henry: Another version of the question is: does the result of processing with a basic processor include attribute type information?
15:24:19 [Norm]
...Do we really want to sign up to what I said before about interoperable infoset or are we just setting a lower bound.
15:24:45 [Norm]
...So we could say what properties you will get, but you might get more. That's a generalization of the question.
15:26:09 [Norm]
Norm: So my intuition is to say that you can't do validation.
15:26:27 [Norm]
Henry: But the XML spec doesn't classify processors tightly enough for us to do that.
15:26:50 [Norm]
Norm: True, and the whole point about reading external declarations is so that we get some attribute types.
15:28:59 [Norm]
Vojtech: If we follow Henry's idea of only specifying a lower bound, then aren't we done?
15:30:44 [Norm]
Some rambling discussion of the issues
15:36:37 [Norm]
Henry: If we want to answer the question, we will have to be much more careful about what is conveyed. This will require a careful reading of the XML spec.
15:37:04 [Norm]
...We'll have to take a stand on every optional feature for non-validating parsers in the XML spec.
15:37:13 [Norm]
...The two we've thought of so far are element content whitespace and attribute types.
15:38:39 [Norm]
Norm expresses concern about what parser implementors will do if we attempt to specify specific answers to a bunch of detailed questions.
15:38:54 [Norm]
Alex: What happens with web browsers today?
15:43:04 [Norm]
Alex volunteers to look at what Webkit does
15:43:17 [Norm]
ACTION: Alex to investigate what Webkit does
15:43:25 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry to ask Richard what rxp does
15:44:26 [Norm]
s/Comment 1,/topic: Comment 1,/
15:44:46 [Norm]
topic: Comment 2, XSLT media type
15:46:11 [Norm]
Henry: I read the definition of the element-content-whitespace property in the Infoset spec as being very carefully worded to allow the possibility that this property could be set through a process other than validation.
15:46:50 [Norm]
Norm: I'm happy to fix this in our example. Lots of folks use text/xsl, but application/xslt+xml is what's registered.
15:46:52 [Norm]
Alex: Yes.
15:46:58 [Norm]
Norm: Objects?
15:47:00 [Norm]
None yeard.
15:47:03 [Norm]
s/yeard/heard/
15:47:12 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry to change text/xsl in the spec.
15:47:34 [Norm]
topic: Comment 3, XML Base processing
15:49:01 [Norm]
Alex: I'm not sure I understand what the objection is.
15:50:07 [Norm]
Henry: I think all we need to say is that we don't mean anything more than XML Base, but that by depending on our profiles, you must use XML base. You could get the same effect by saying you conform to XML Base, but you don't have to.
15:52:57 [Norm]
Alex: It's a layer cake, I think all we're missing is a refernece to the infoset.
15:53:16 [Norm]
Henry: I think we made an intentional decision not to put square brackets around base URI.
15:54:28 [Norm]
...the XML base spec does not refer to the infoset spec. It doesn't put square brackets around the phrase base URI.
15:55:02 [Norm]
...And that's why we quite consciously didn't introduce a reference to infoset here.
15:55:20 [Norm]
Henry: I think we just need a terminology section like XML Base that says what we mean by "base URI"
15:55:43 [Norm]
Norm: That seems reasonable; let's do that and see if it satisfies the commenter.
15:56:08 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry to propose the change and reply to the commenter.
15:56:18 [Norm]
s/the change/the addition of a terminology section/
15:57:45 [Norm]
topic: Any other business?
15:57:47 [Norm]
None heard.
15:57:51 [Norm]
Adjourned.
15:58:00 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
15:58:03 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-xproc-minutes.html Norm
15:58:06 [Norm]
zakim, bye
15:58:19 [Zakim]
-Norm
15:58:21 [Zakim]
-Vojtech
15:58:23 [Zakim]
-Ht
15:58:25 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Norm, Vojtech, alexmilowski, Ht
15:58:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc