IRC log of xproc on 2011-10-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:57:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
13:57:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:58:01 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #xproc
13:58:05 [Norm]
zakim, this will be xproc
13:58:05 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
13:58:12 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
13:58:12 [Norm]
Date: 13 October 2011
13:58:12 [Norm]
13:58:12 [Norm]
Meeting: 199
13:58:12 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
13:58:13 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
13:58:15 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
13:58:24 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
13:59:29 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started
13:59:50 [Zakim]
13:59:57 [Zakim]
14:00:26 [Norm]
zakim, passcode?
14:00:28 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, Norm
14:00:38 [Zakim]
14:00:50 [Zakim]
14:01:10 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
14:01:44 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
14:01:48 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
14:01:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Alex_Milows, JimFuller, Norm, PGrosso
14:01:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Vojtech, ht, alexmilowski, Zakim, RRSAgent, PGrosso, Norm, jimfuller, Liam, caribou
14:01:55 [Norm]
Regrets: Mohamed
14:02:06 [Norm]
Present: Alex, Jim, Norm, Paul, Henry, Vojtech
14:02:37 [Zakim]
14:02:50 [Zakim]
14:03:13 [Norm]
14:03:54 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
14:03:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Alex_Milows, JimFuller, Norm, PGrosso, Vojtech, ht
14:03:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Vojtech, ht, alexmilowski, Zakim, RRSAgent, PGrosso, Norm, jimfuller, Liam, caribou
14:04:17 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
14:04:17 [Norm]
14:04:24 [Norm]
14:04:28 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
14:04:28 [Norm]
14:04:34 [Norm]
14:04:49 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon, 20 October 2011?
14:04:59 [Norm]
No regrets heard.
14:05:36 [Norm]
Topic: XML processor profiles issues
14:05:43 [Norm]
14:06:30 [Norm]
Norm: We've got a bunch of open issues. Henry, want to give us an update?
14:07:33 [Norm]
Henry: The only changes I've got planned are the one's minuted last week. Renaming of the profiles, renaming B' to S, and changing of a bit of wording in 4.2.3.
14:07:38 [Norm]
Norm: Thank you, Henry.
14:08:38 [Norm]
Norm: Let's skim over the open issues and see how many we feel comfortable marking as closed.
14:09:25 [Norm]
Norm: I think issue 1 is resolved.
14:09:28 [Norm]
Vojtech: I think so.
14:12:50 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry to review isssue 3 (2) and 3 (3) as editorial making changes as the editor sees fit
14:14:29 [Norm]
Henry: WRT comment 4, add a sentence to the beginning of section 3 clarifying how the classes are derived from the table below.
14:14:39 [Norm]
...Comment (5) is resolved by section 7 in the latest draft.
14:15:48 [Norm]
Norm: That leaves (1); Liam objects to calling the Infoset a data model.
14:16:44 [Norm]
Henry: If I changed it to "the infoset or data models that capture similar information" that OK?
14:16:49 [Norm]
Paul: Sure.
14:18:02 [Norm]
Norm: Issue 4 was a thread we did about browsers. I think we can close that.
14:18:20 [Norm]
Alex: It's possible the browser could do more, but I don't think we're going get a better story.
14:18:45 [Norm]
...I'd like XInclude, but we don't have a profile for that the browsers could do.
14:19:14 [Norm]
Henry: I think it's fine; in so far as the point of the full profile is that you basically have the document that the author committed to, I think having XInclude but not external entities is odd in that respect.
14:19:25 [Norm]
Alex: Unless you're in a DTD-less world, then it's not odd.
14:20:11 [Norm]
Norm: Issue 5 is about test cases, but we're going to try not to do CR, so we can close it, yes?
14:20:35 [Norm]
No objections
14:21:21 [Norm]
Norm: Issue 6 from the Core WG.
14:22:06 [Norm]
Norm: I think we've removed "recommended" which helps, and I think we'll need something in the introduction to spell out why we chose the profiles we did.
14:22:21 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to attempt to draft that prose, cf. cmsmcq's comment 1
14:23:04 [Norm]
Norm: Issue 7; I don't think we're going to get the browsers to move on that.
14:23:15 [Norm]
Alex: The point there was the second bit, having standalone have an interpretation.
14:23:28 [Norm]
Henry: The browsers aren't going to pay attention to the standalone declaration.
14:24:04 [Norm]
...Unless we change the XML spec to change the default. The problem is that the default is standalone=no. So if we ask the browsers to change to make standalone=no an error, we'll break all XHTML. It's a lose-lose situation.
14:26:00 [Norm]
Henry: The one thing we could imagine doing is to say that there's a media-type dependent default which is standalone=yes. What we'd be asking the browsers to do is two things: (1) give an error in the presence of an explicit standalone=no, and (2) give an error for non-HTML XML unless there's an explicit standalone=yes
14:26:59 [Norm]
Norm: In 1997, maybe. But today it's just not worth it. We'd be asking every user serving non-XHTML XML to change.
14:28:17 [Norm]
Henry: So how would Core feel about saying that the XML XHTML5 spec can default standalone=no
14:30:23 [Norm]
...If we don't do this, then we should have raised an issue on XHTML5 saying that they're not raising an error when XML says they should.
14:32:02 [Norm]
Further discussion, leading to the observation that standalone is a validity constraint
14:33:29 [Norm]
Paul: I'm happy to have the Core WG say something if it helps make things work better.
14:33:39 [Norm] long as it doesn't rewrite the XML spec.
14:34:03 [Norm]
Alex: I think the question is, if you look at the combination of our new document with the smallest profile and the XHTML5 spec, what's the interpretation of the standalone attribute.
14:35:50 [Norm]
ACTION: Paul to put standalone on the Core agenda.
14:38:36 [Norm]
Norm: Let's skip 8 for the moment, I think we've resolved 9 by removing the word "recommended"
14:39:09 [Norm]
Norm: I think 10 is resolved.
14:41:18 [Norm]
Norm: I think 11 and 12 are just observations, not comments on the spec
14:42:01 [Norm]
Norm: I think 13 is resolved by adding section 7
14:43:26 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry to add a note to the effect that we are talking about static parsing, not dynamic environments
14:44:16 [Norm]
Henry: issues 14 and 15 are informational, not comments on the spec
14:44:26 [Norm]
Norm: Issue 16 is clearly a bug.
14:46:11 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
14:46:19 [Norm]
Norm encourages everyone to read xproc-dev
14:46:20 [Zakim]
14:46:20 [Norm]
14:46:21 [Zakim]
14:46:21 [Zakim]
14:46:23 [Zakim]
14:46:25 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
14:46:30 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:46:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
14:46:33 [Zakim]
14:46:36 [Zakim]
14:46:36 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended
14:46:37 [Zakim]
Attendees were Alex_Milows, JimFuller, Norm, PGrosso, Vojtech, ht
14:47:02 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
15:18:43 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
16:31:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc