16:04:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #xproc
16:04:50 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-xproc-irc
16:05:19 <ht> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2011Oct/0036.html
16:05:53 <MoZ> Scribe: alexmilowski
16:10:49 <alexmilowski> Present: Henry Thompson, Paul Grosso, James Fuller, Vojtech Toman, Mohamed Zergaoui, ,Cornelia Davis,  Murray Maloney, Alex Milowski
16:11:24 <alexmilowski> Issues list: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
16:14:27 <alexmilowski> Issue 3: We think this is closed but need to check with Liam to verifiy.
16:14:59 <Cdavis_> Cdavis_ has joined #xproc
16:16:27 <ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
16:16:47 <Cornelia> Cornelia has joined #xproc
16:16:51 <jfuller> jfuller has joined #xproc
16:16:55 <ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.xml#non-normative-references
16:19:01 <alexmilowski> Action: Editors to remove "particularly" clause in section 5 as this may lead to inferences that we do not want.   See Henry's brain.
16:24:56 <alexmilowski> Disccusion of Issue 7: Henry was recalling his memory of the lead up to taking this to XML Core and how XHTML treats entity definitions.
16:25:57 <alexmilowski> Henry: standalone=yes does not cause an error ... no difference for a well-formed parser.
16:26:30 <alexmilowski> Henry: No need to change the default because it won't change the behavior of the parsers in use for XHTML in browsers.
16:29:53 <alexmilowski> Henry: XHTML5 maps any public identifier to a pre-defined external subset.
16:32:16 <alexmilowski> Paul: What are the datatypes available?
16:32:24 <alexmilowski> Henry: Only DTD datatypes.
16:32:47 <alexmilowski> Some discussion of attribute definitions, NMTokens, and tokenization available when parsers encounter definitions.
16:36:28 <alexmilowski> Some more digging into what HTML5 says about doctypes and entity definitions.
16:40:43 <alexmilowski> Henry: Core says "there is nothing here" ... we're done.
16:40:47 <alexmilowski> Alex: I agree
16:40:58 <alexmilowski> Action: Close issue 7
16:42:29 <alexmilowski> Action: Henry to try to get agreement from Henri Sivonen on issue 9.
16:47:04 <alexmilowski> Discussion on Issue 19
16:47:26 <alexmilowski> Paul: Look at paragraph 3 ...
16:48:13 <alexmilowski> Action: Recommend the editor use Paul's version of paragraph 3.
16:48:59 <alexmilowski> Action: Change "is an attempt to give" to "gives"
16:49:26 <alexmilowski> Action: Norm needs to suggest how this will be integrated into the document.  Where does this fit in?
16:50:30 <ht> ht has joined #xproc
16:51:44 <MoZ> http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-xproc-irc
16:52:16 <ht> HST proposes wrt issue 19 that we relabel section 1 as 'Introduction', push the existing prose down to subsection 1.1 Background, and make Norm's new prose the body text of section 1
16:54:22 <alexmilowski> With the actions taken today, we will have closed all the issues today, hopefully to the satisfaction of the commentators.
16:54:35 <alexmilowski> Last issue is issue 8
16:56:36 <jfuller> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/Overview.html
16:58:30 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.2: Address by adding different profiles.
16:59:20 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.2: We kept basic and added external declaration profile.
16:59:23 <alexmilowski> Henry: Agreed.
16:59:57 <alexmilowski> Working group endorses suggested solution to 8.2
17:00:48 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.3: Class V starts to address this.  Do we need to add a full validating profile?  We've minimally addressed this.
17:01:04 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.3: We've also added section 7: Validation.
17:01:37 <alexmilowski> Working group endorses solution to 8.3
17:02:21 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.5: Possibly add a diagram?
17:04:34 <alexmilowski> Henry: This should be added to 4.2
17:05:06 <alexmilowski> Vojtech: Maybe we want to rename the profile classes so that they make more sense in the diagram?
17:07:27 <alexmilowski> Henry: We need all the classes we have.  Renaming them may make sense.
17:07:43 <alexmilowski> Alex: Maybe we finish the diagram and see what makes sense.
17:10:09 <alexmilowski> Some discussion between Henry & Murray about the classes & validation.
17:13:25 <alexmilowski> Murray: Validating XML processors must read & process the external declarations... 
17:13:38 <alexmilowski> Henry: (Reads the spec saying that as so ...)
17:14:14 <alexmilowski> A processor that validates but doesn't read external declarations isn't a conforming XML processor.
17:16:31 <alexmilowski> Henry: (Paraphrasing the discussion) Making validation optional or required is incoherent against the profiles.
17:17:53 <alexmilowski> Alex: I'm feeling uneasy about this.  As a user you can pick a profile and turn on validation and do the wrong thing.
17:18:00 <alexmilowski> Henry: We need to say something about this.
17:20:29 <alexmilowski> (Murray is point at the diagram making good points about validation and profiles.)
17:26:14 <alexmilowski> Murray: In the case where you are enabling the XInclude and validation flag, can we say "it is recommended" or "required" that you validate after the XInclude?
17:27:14 <alexmilowski> Henry: Instead of three, there are only two: before or after.
17:27:29 <alexmilowski> Paul: Isn't that the [status quo].
17:28:56 <alexmilowski> Henry: It is coherent to validate first because you'll get element content whitespace ...
17:41:06 <ht> ht has joined #xproc
17:41:15 <alexmilowski> alexmilowski has joined #xproc
17:42:04 <Cornelia> Cornelia has joined #xproc
17:42:28 <PGrosso> PGrosso has joined #xproc
17:48:49 <Cornelia> Cornelia has joined #xproc
17:49:53 <ht> RRSAgent, logs?
17:49:53 <RRSAgent> I'm logging.  Sorry, nothing found for 'logs'
17:49:57 <ht> RRSAgent, log?
17:49:57 <RRSAgent> I'm logging.  Sorry, nothing found for 'log'
17:50:20 <jfuller> jfuller has joined #xproc
17:55:35 <alexmilowski> Comment: We have "id xml processor profile" but the profile adds xml:id.  Maybe this should be the "xml:id XML Processor profile"
17:55:55 <alexmilowski> Comment: Maybe we should make "XML Processor Profile" less redundant in the document.
18:02:17 <alexmilowski> Paul: On issue 8.5, what are the remaining questions?
18:03:22 <alexmilowski> The validation questions relate to 8.3.  We need to re-open this issue.
18:04:02 <alexmilowski> Paul: We can close 8.5 by adding the diagram.
18:06:00 <alexmilowski> Henry: It is perfectly valid to provide XML Schema validation for any of the profiles.  ... it is not the same for DTD validation.
18:06:14 <alexmilowski> Paul: We can close 8.3 and 8.5 and open a new issue about validation.
18:06:41 <alexmilowski> Action: Henry will draft the new issue.
18:07:02 <ht> New issue: How to expand 7 (and possible earlier bits) to clarify the distinction between DTD validation and validation in general
18:07:35 <Liam> Liam has joined #xproc
18:07:57 <ht> ... DTD validation is _not_ orthogonal, e.g. Basic+DTD Validation is not conformant with XML spec
18:08:12 <ht> ... but e.g. Schema validation is orthogonal
18:08:29 <PGrosso> s/7/section 7 in the draft/
18:08:36 <ht> ... Also, expand the discussion of ordering of xinclude and validation
18:10:43 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.7: In profiles external declarations (2.3) and full (2.4), "reading and processing" versus "processing." 
18:11:06 <alexmilowski> Henry: That prose is directly from the XML specification and I'm reluctant to fix it.
18:11:49 <alexmilowski> Henry: [ this text intended to reproduce what the XML spec says ]
18:14:09 <alexmilowski> The link in the profiles document takes you to the location in the XML specification that has the relevant text.
18:18:45 <alexmilowski> Action: Henry will attempt to separate the two parts of #1 on 2.3/2.4.
18:19:21 <MoZ> MoZ has joined #xproc
18:22:30 <alexmilowski> Action: Issue 8.8: Editorial
18:26:15 <alexmilowski> Henry: Instead of steps necessary, they are steps "preparatory" .
18:26:27 <alexmilowski> The profile steps are not "steps" ...
18:26:57 <alexmilowski> Action: Henry will rework the introduction to section 2.
18:27:37 <alexmilowski> "Step" is the wrong word throughout the profile section ... Henry will look at this as well.
18:28:46 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.9, action to henry
18:29:14 <alexmilowski> Action: Henry to review the use of conformance in section 4.
18:29:46 <Zakim> Zakim has left #xproc
18:30:48 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.10: There have been changes that may have addressed this.
18:31:25 <alexmilowski> Henry: word 'rigid' is still there.
18:32:36 <alexmilowski> Action: Henry to soften language in the first paragraph of Section 1, Background.
18:34:00 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.12
18:34:36 <alexmilowski> Henry: remove "since this specification is not implementable as such" and this will be fixed.
18:35:29 <alexmilowski> Alex: What did the infoset do about this?
18:38:02 <alexmilowski> Alex: We use "require" in each of the profile.
18:38:32 <alexmilowski> Henry: We define conformance ...
18:38:57 <alexmilowski> ...make it be that conformance starts when some other specification references our specification.
18:39:45 <alexmilowski> Henry: It is going to define what it means to conform to a profile.
18:40:30 <alexmilowski> Henry: [ a substantive change to section 6 to address issue 8.12]
18:41:20 <alexmilowski> This specification doesn't have implementations but it does have specifications that conform to it.
18:41:54 <alexmilowski> Action: Henry to change section 6 to address 8.12
18:42:56 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.14
18:44:08 <alexmilowski> Henry: XPath 2 distinguished between implementation defined and implementation determined.
18:44:53 <alexmilowski> [choice vs unspecified]
18:46:03 <alexmilowski> implementation dependent vs implementation defined
18:46:40 <alexmilowski> Action: Henry to clarify use of term to address 8.14.  Take suggested fix.
18:47:11 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.16
18:47:20 <Vojtech> Vojtech has joined #xproc
18:47:44 <alexmilowski> The names may change again
18:47:52 <alexmilowski> In progress...
18:49:35 <alexmilowski> Henry to consider moving the tabulation to the front of section 3.
18:51:09 <alexmilowski> Alex: I like having the class definitions first so you know what the table is about.
18:51:35 <alexmilowski> Henry: It might be more useful to have more descriptive names: Class A: Items and properties fundamental to all XML documents.
18:52:40 <alexmilowski> Alex: Maybe change the class definitions to have two parts: the description of the class and the requirements on the properties.
18:55:30 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.4
18:56:29 <alexmilowski> Still open, James is building a list.
18:56:45 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.11
18:58:52 <alexmilowski> Henry: We can use this for an implementation report.
18:59:22 <alexmilowski> Alex: There is a distinction between the options and the common use of those options in a product (e.g. Chrome/Safari)
18:59:28 <alexmilowski> James is working on this.
18:59:39 <alexmilowski> Alex: I volunteer for helping with WebKit et. al.
18:59:50 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.6
19:01:17 <Liam> Liam has joined #xproc
19:02:47 <alexmilowski> Henry/Murray: "ID type assignment" language...
19:07:23 <alexmilowski> Action: Take the suggestion by using http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/#inform and taking "ID type assignment" and forcing bullet #1.  See minutes.
19:09:01 <ht> ht has joined #xproc
19:09:02 <alexmilowski> "Perform ID type assignment for all xml:id attributes as required by xml:id 1.0 by setting their attribute type Infoset property to type ID"
19:10:20 <alexmilowski> Issue 8.13
19:10:43 <alexmilowski> Section 6 is a start...
19:11:36 <ht> RRSAgent, make logs public
19:12:20 <PGrosso> PGrosso has left #xproc
19:35:27 <Cornelia> Cornelia has joined #xproc
19:37:19 <Liam> Liam has joined #xproc
19:56:40 <Liam> [xquery breaking for lunch]
20:03:39 <alexmilowski> alexmilowski has joined #xproc
20:11:49 <alexmilowski> alexmilowski has joined #xproc
20:41:52 <MoZ> MoZ has joined #xproc
20:42:15 <Vojtech> Vojtech has joined #xproc
20:42:23 <alexmilowski> alexmilowski has joined #xproc
20:42:37 <ht> ht has joined #xproc
20:44:36 <jfuller> jfuller has joined #xproc
20:45:03 <PGrosso> PGrosso has joined #xproc
20:46:02 <alexmilowski> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/xproc-candidate-issues/
20:47:07 <PGrosso> scribe pgrosso
20:47:59 <PGrosso> 3 things left from Jim's list
20:48:26 <PGrosso> open issues against XProc itself which we need to sort into Vnext requests and potential errata.
20:51:27 <PGrosso> http://www.w3.org/XML/Activity
20:51:56 <MoZ> http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/10/xproc-charter
20:53:24 <Cornelia> Cornelia has joined #xproc
20:55:40 <PGrosso> Our charter ends the end of this coming January. We need to decide if we will recharter or just extend.
21:01:35 <PGrosso> The abstract says each profile defines a data model, but that isn't really true. We should consider rewording that.
21:01:59 <PGrosso> The profile determines properties that are available from which to determine a data model.
21:02:42 <PGrosso> action to henry: the abstract (and any paragraph in the Background that is almost a copy of it) needs to be rewritten.
21:03:49 <ht> ht has joined #xproc
21:05:34 <PGrosso> We find that the spec uses the term data model all over the place and perhaps in a fashion that will be confusing to people.
21:05:57 <PGrosso> Jim's terminology section should define the term, though Alex suggests perhaps we use a different word in most cases.
21:07:10 <PGrosso> action to alex: sketch out by tomorrow morning if possible how we should address the "data model" terminology in the spec.
21:11:32 <PGrosso> Perhaps we should add some words to explain why we picked each of the 4 profiles we did and admit that there could be lots more so that our choice was somewhat arbitrary although still, we hope, useful.
21:12:37 <PGrosso> For example, we believe all browsers implement (at least) basic and not all browser implement any of the larger profiles.
21:13:20 <PGrosso> Our profiles were based on sets of available properties, not on things like streaming or not or dynamic manipulation or not.
21:16:10 <PGrosso> action to jim: suggest a short rationale for our picking each of our profiles.
21:18:33 <PGrosso> Hey HENRY:  what does "faithful provision" mean?
21:18:59 <ht> Where?
21:19:19 <PGrosso> In section 2 all over
21:20:04 <ht> It means that whatever gets put in a data model does actually (enable itself to) reconstruct the information defined by the relevant infoset property
21:20:45 <PGrosso> ht: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html#profiles
21:21:05 <ht> So, e.g., if the parser builds a datamodel that doesn't actually discriminate between NMTOKEN and ID is not 'faithfully provisioning' wrt the attribute type
21:21:08 <ht> property
21:21:39 <PGrosso> I don't think I understand that use of the word "provision". Can you give me a synonym?
21:22:12 <ht> 'install'
21:22:18 <ht> 'install in'
21:22:59 <PGrosso> for 8.15, we will accept Michael's suggested fix and let the editor massage as necessary.
21:25:27 <PGrosso> for 8.17, Alex suggests we add a short sentence or two about each of xml:id, xml:base, and xinclude to section 2 (perhaps just the intro to 2 or maybe a new subsection).
21:25:47 <PGrosso> [and the WG agrees]
21:26:44 <PGrosso> action to Murray: suggest the wording to add about xml:id, xml:base, and xinclude.
21:28:08 <PGrosso> For 8.18, these are all editorial, and we are leaving their resolution to Jim and Norm.
21:29:06 <PGrosso> And that takes us to the end of LC comments.
21:31:40 <PGrosso> Section 4.2.3, Vojtech questions whether "Unexpanded Entity Reference Information Items" should be in there at all because he doesn't think there is any difference.
21:34:41 <PGrosso> Also in section 4, we note that all those "Entirely, for the same reason" are still confusing and need to be spelled out or something.
21:38:45 <PGrosso> We believe (though we're not positive) that "Unexpanded Entity Reference Information Items" has to be the same for the "external declaration" profile and the full profile.
21:39:37 <PGrosso> We aren't sure that we understand what happens for Unexpanded Entity Reference Information Items for either profile, so we need to re-discuss this with HST.
21:41:13 <PGrosso> Vojtech has some editorial comments that he will pass on to Jim.
21:46:03 <alexmilowski> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/xproc-candidate-issues/
21:46:44 <jfuller> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/xproc-candidate-issues/
21:48:15 <PGrosso> issue 001 to be filed under Vnext.
21:48:47 <PGrosso> Issues 002 and 003 are closed.
21:48:55 <PGrosso> Issue 004 is for V.next.
21:51:52 <PGrosso> Issue 005 is about conformance for the xproc (and Vojtech's comment here is about the profile spec), so this goes into the errata pile.
21:52:11 <PGrosso> Issue 006 is for V.next.
21:54:18 <PGrosso> We believe that issue 007 is a bug in Calabash.  action to Norm to check and confirm.
21:55:20 <PGrosso> Issue 008 is an erratum.
22:00:43 <PGrosso> Issue 009 is asking that the xproc schema be updated to include p:template, but p:template is not part of V1, so we wonder if we can change the schema. Paul doubts it, but thinks that we could add such a schema to the p:template note. We should discuss this with Norm and Henry too, but we are leaning toward adding the augmented schema to the note.
22:02:01 <PGrosso> MoZ says that implementors cannot add something in the p namespace, so they cannot use p:template with the official xproc schema.
22:02:40 <PGrosso> Leaving Issue 009 open for discussion.
22:05:31 <PGrosso> At least most of Issue 010 is V.next. But there is one thing that Norm says "I'll put that on the bug list" and we're not sure what that is, so:
22:06:09 <PGrosso> action to Norm: Look at issue 010 and determine what aspect of it is a bug and report back.
22:30:21 <PGrosso> [break until 15:45]
22:59:00 <alexmilowski> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/20-minutes.html#item05
22:59:24 <PGrosso> Issue 013 was discussed in the minutes Alex just posted above.
23:00:12 <PGrosso> Norm was given an action to write a proposal for V.next.
23:00:52 <MoZ> MoZ has joined #xproc
23:01:00 <PGrosso> And Alex has an action on this issue to do some more research.
23:03:45 <PGrosso> Issue 014 is an erratum.  It requires some clarification in the spec as outlined in Vojtech's email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2011Oct/0006.
23:06:47 <PGrosso> Issue 015 is V.next unless Norm says it's just closable.  action to Norm to confirm.
23:07:40 <PGrosso> Same with Issue 016--V.next with Norm to confirm.
23:11:13 <PGrosso> Issue 017 is V.next.
23:12:24 <PGrosso> We believe issue 018 is just fyi and is neither an erratum or A v.next request, so we will just close it.  action to Norm to confirm.
23:13:19 <PGrosso> Issues 019 through 024 are already closed.
23:14:05 <PGrosso> Issue 025 is an erratum.  We should clarify that xslt match patterns are evaluated using the Step xpath context.
23:20:33 <PGrosso> action to Norm (editor): clarify that xslt match patterns are evaluated using the step xpath context (to close 025).
23:23:00 <PGrosso> action to Norm (editor): Clarify that what Norm asked about is conformant to close 014.
23:25:13 <PGrosso> action to Norm (editor): to correct the obvious bug outlined in issue 008.
23:32:53 <PGrosso> Regarding 009, Paul suggests that we can add to the p:template WG Note an augmented schema, but we can't pretend that the augmented schema is the official 1.0 one.
23:34:41 <PGrosso> action to Jim: create the augmented schema (that includes p:template) and augment the WG Note to point to the augmented schema.
23:36:03 <PGrosso> So we can close 009 as neither errata nor V.next (though we'll probably put p:template into V.next) and just address it with a Second Edition of the WG Note.
23:38:37 <PGrosso> That leaves us with 005 on the conformance section of the xproc spec at http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#conformance
23:42:39 <PGrosso> action to Jim:  Give a try to finding all conformance statements throughout the spec and putting references to them in the conformance section to address issue 005.
23:50:13 <PGrosso> meeting adjourned 16:49 local time until 9:00 tomorrow.
23:50:25 <PGrosso> PGrosso has left #xproc
23:50:53 <MoZ> RSSAgent, help
23:51:48 <MoZ> RSSAgent, make minutes
23:52:17 <MoZ> RSSAgent, make minutes worldwide visible
23:59:54 <ht> RSSAgent, make logs world-visible