See also: IRC log
Date: 27 May 2010
<scribe> Meeting: 172
<scribe> Scribe: Norm
<scribe> ScribeNick: Norm
Paul gives regrets for 3 June
Yay us! XProc is a W3C Recommendation!
Norm: I'm inclined to agree with David that it would be nice, but I'm not sure what we can say.
Henry: Yes, there's a constant
grumbling about whitespace
... Can a non-validating but doctype reading processor notice what elements have element only content and ignore whitespace?
Norm: No, I don't think that's
... 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.
... As far as I can tell, we don't give any processor any leeway to discard whitespace.
Henry: Is it conformant to the XML specification for a non-validating processor to report element-content-whitespace? I see nothing that forbids it.
Alex: So does Saxon throw away element content whitespace?
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.
... I'm not sure what we can do to help.
Henry: A significant goal of our spec is to improve interoperability. David points out that we don't say.
Norm: Is a minimal processor or a basic processor allowed to do DTD validation?
Henry: We haven't answered that
... Another version of the question is: does the result of processing with a basic processor include attribute type information?
... Do we really want to sign up to what I said before about interoperable infoset or are we just setting a lower bound.
... So we could say what properties you will get, but you might get more. That's a generalization of the question.
Norm: So my intuition is to say that you can't do validation.
Henry: But the XML spec doesn't classify processors tightly enough for us to do that.
Norm: True, and the whole point about reading external declarations is so that we get some attribute types.
Vojtech: If we follow Henry's idea of only specifying a lower bound, then aren't we done?
Some rambling discussion of the issues
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
... We'll have to take a stand on every optional feature for non-validating parsers in the XML spec.
... The two we've thought of so far are element content whitespace and attribute types.
Norm expresses concern about what parser implementors will do if we attempt to specify specific answers to a bunch of detailed questions.
Alex: What happens with web browsers today?
Alex volunteers to look at what Webkit does
<scribe> ACTION: Alex to investigate what Webkit does [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to ask Richard what rxp does [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
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.
Norm: I'm happy to fix this in our example. Lots of folks use text/xsl, but application/xslt+xml is what's registered.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to change text/xsl in the spec. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
Alex: I'm not sure I understand what the objection is.
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.
Alex: It's a layer cake, I think all we're missing is a refernece to the infoset.
Henry: I think we made an
intentional decision not to put square brackets around base
... the XML base spec does not refer to the infoset spec. It doesn't put square brackets around the phrase base URI.
... And that's why we quite consciously didn't introduce a reference to infoset here.
... I think we just need a terminology section like XML Base that says what we mean by "base URI"
Norm: That seems reasonable; let's do that and see if it satisfies the commenter.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to propose the addition of a terminology section and reply to the commenter. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-xproc-minutes.html#action04]
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) Succeeded: s/Comment 1,/topic: Comment 1,/ Succeeded: s/yeard/heard/ Succeeded: s/the change/the addition of a terminology section/ Found Scribe: Norm Inferring ScribeNick: Norm Found ScribeNick: Norm WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Alex Henry Ht Jeroen Liam Norm P40 ScribeNick Vojtech alexmilowski caribou joined xproc You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Regrets: Paul Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/05/27-agenda Found Date: 27 May 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-xproc-minutes.html People with action items: alex henry[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]