IRC log of xproc on 2011-06-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:57:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
13:57:30 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:57:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #xproc
13:57:37 [Norm]
zakim, this will be xproc
13:57:37 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
13:57:49 [Norm]
zakim, what's the passcode?
13:57:49 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), Norm
13:57:55 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started
13:58:02 [Zakim]
13:58:14 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: XProc WG meets 30 June: (Norm)
13:58:28 [Zakim]
13:58:29 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
13:58:29 [Norm]
Date: 30 June 2011
13:58:29 [Norm]
13:58:29 [Norm]
Meeting: 195
13:58:29 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
13:58:30 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
13:58:32 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
13:58:33 [Zakim]
13:58:33 [Zakim]
13:58:44 [Norm]
zakim, ??p19 is jimfuller
13:58:44 [Zakim]
+jimfuller; got it
14:00:15 [Zakim]
14:00:51 [Zakim]
14:01:01 [Zakim]
14:01:22 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
14:01:36 [Zakim]
14:01:44 [ht]
zakim, ? is me
14:01:44 [Zakim]
+ht; got it
14:01:51 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
14:01:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, Alex_Milows, ht
14:01:52 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Vojtech, Zakim, RRSAgent, Norm, PGrosso, jimfuller, ht, Liam
14:01:57 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
14:02:14 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Paul, Alex, Henry, Jim
14:02:17 [Zakim]
14:02:25 [Vojtech]
zakim, jeroen is Vojtech
14:02:25 [Zakim]
+Vojtech; got it
14:02:27 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Paul, Alex, Henry, Jim, Vojtech
14:02:33 [jimfuller]
coming back in on mute
14:02:35 [jimfuller]
um mute button was the stop button, brb
14:02:43 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
14:02:43 [Norm]
14:02:48 [Norm]
14:02:53 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
14:02:53 [Norm]
14:02:58 [Norm]
14:03:03 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon, 14 July 2011?
14:03:04 [jimfuller]
on mute
14:03:19 [Zakim]
14:03:23 [Norm]
Vojtech gives regrets.
14:03:28 [jimfuller]
14:03:32 [Norm]
zakim, ??p32 is jimfuller
14:03:32 [Zakim]
+jimfuller; got it
14:03:44 [Norm]
Topic: Validation in XML processor profiles
14:04:09 [Norm]
Norm: Henry, we asked you to take a look.
14:04:18 [Norm]
Henry: Yes. After looking at it for a while, I don't think it belongs in this spec.
14:05:23 [Norm]
...It's a one-clause statement. Instead of someone saying "the input processing for my spec is the whatever profile", they say "comes from a *validating* processor that conforms to the whatever profile"
14:05:52 [Norm]
...That seems to be the right way to do it, and we already have a statement about the fact that some properties, such as element-content-whitespace depend on whether or not you have a validating processor.
14:06:13 [Norm]
Norm: Because the only difference is ... element content whitespace?
14:06:25 [Norm]
Henry: Well, even if that wasn't true, I don't htink I'd want to make 2n profiles where we have n today.
14:06:29 [Norm]
14:06:38 [Norm]
...It's the wrong place to multiply things.
14:06:51 [Norm]
...And element-content-whitespace is the only place where it isn't completely orthogonal.
14:07:04 [Norm]
Alex: Validation is either the input or the output, depending on where you're doing it.
14:07:19 [Norm]
s/either the/either on the/
14:07:22 [Zakim]
14:07:49 [Norm]
Henry: Indeed. Another thing I failed to put in the email is that there are "n" schema languages out there and which one(s) you want to require is up to you.
14:08:08 [jimfuller]
thunderstorm here in Prague messing with telcoms
14:08:14 [jimfuller]
flwing via irc
14:08:50 [Norm]
Alex: I think it would behoove us to have a specific section to enumerate some of these things. It's a "How Should You Consider Validation" section.
14:09:04 [Norm]
Henry: I agree. I'll try to draft that.
14:09:11 [jimfuller]
+1 to that, good idea
14:09:24 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry to draft a new section for XML processor profiles that discusses how to consider validation.
14:09:37 [Norm]
Henry: Mention E-C-WS, mention before or after, mention alternative schema languages.
14:10:13 [Norm]
Topic: Do we say enough about xml:base in steps like p:add-attribute
14:11:31 [Norm]
Norm attempts to reconstruct the XProc/Core xml:base discussion.
14:12:01 [Norm]
Alex: The question is, if you add or change an xml:base attribute in the DOM in a browser, what should happen to the base URI property.
14:12:10 [Norm]
Henry: There's nothing in the XProc spec that you're concerned about.
14:12:27 [Zakim]
14:12:36 [alexmilowski]
lost me ...
14:12:49 [Zakim]
14:13:10 [Norm]
...So the question is, given that HTML5 gives you a way of changing all kinds of stuff in the DOM, should we say something about what changing the xml:base attribute means.
14:13:29 [Norm]
Paul: In the past, we've always stayed away from the editing cases, and dealt with what it means to parse a document.
14:13:46 [Norm]
Henry: I think we want XML Core to ask HTML5 to make it explicit about what happens when you change xml:base.
14:14:19 [Norm]
Alex: In HTML5 the specific case is that xml:base *does* effect the base URI of things like images. Now if you go back and add an xml:base attribute, what should happen?
14:14:51 [Norm]
...I think from a browser implementor perspective, the sane thing to say is that the base URI changes but no URIs are recomputed.
14:15:04 [Norm]
...It's not just HTML5 that has this problem.
14:15:59 [Norm]
Paul: So what I hear is that someone should point out that HTML5 should say what happens when you change xml:base.
14:18:03 [Norm]
Alex: I opened a bug, on the issue.
14:18:55 [jimfuller]
reading the bug
14:19:14 [PGrosso]
HT points out that it would make a stronger statement if a WG filed such a comment.
14:19:41 [PGrosso]
Paul suggested the xproc WG could do that. ht thought it might make more sense for the xml core wg to do it.
14:20:05 [PGrosso]
Paul could live with it either way as long as someone else (e.g., Alex, Henry, Norm) writes the comment.
14:20:19 [Norm]
Norm argues we've done enough. Henry counters that it means more if it comes from a WG when reviewed by the Director.
14:21:34 [Norm]
Paul: I think it makes more sense to come from XProc.
14:21:54 [jimfuller]
me too
14:22:08 [Norm]
Alex: Would you take the action to write the comment and send it to our list for review.
14:22:18 [Norm]
14:22:22 [Norm]
Alex: Sure.
14:22:33 [Norm]
ACTION: Alex to draft a comment about xml:base processing for the XProc WG to send to HTML5 WG.
14:23:09 [Norm]
Norm: I'm inclined to leave the question about whether or not our spec says enough off until Henry returns.
14:23:16 [Norm]
...Any objections?
14:23:17 [Norm]
None heard.
14:23:22 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
14:23:28 [Norm]
None heard.
14:23:38 [Zakim]
14:23:39 [Zakim]
14:23:39 [Zakim]
14:23:40 [Zakim]
14:23:42 [Norm]
14:23:46 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
14:23:49 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:23:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
14:24:23 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
15:05:05 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, ht, in XML_PMWG()10:00AM
15:05:11 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended
15:05:18 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, jimfuller, PGrosso, Alex_Milows, ht, Vojtech
16:05:48 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
17:04:52 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc