IRC log of xproc on 2012-03-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:10:39 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:10:39 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:10:41 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
14:10:41 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:10:41 [Norm]
Date: 15 March 2012
14:10:41 [Norm]
14:10:41 [Norm]
Meeting: 210
14:10:42 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:10:44 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:10:46 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:10:48 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
14:10:51 [Norm]
14:10:52 [Norm]
14:11:06 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
14:11:06 [Norm]
14:11:21 [Norm]
14:11:26 [Norm]
Regrets: Cornelia
14:11:46 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon, 22 March 2012
14:11:55 [Norm]
No regrets heard.
14:12:51 [Norm]
Topic: Review of open action items
14:12:55 [Norm]
A-206-02: continued
14:13:09 [Norm]
A-207-01: completed. there's only one comment
14:13:23 [Norm]
A-207-02: continued
14:13:28 [Norm]
Regrets: Cornelia, Mohamed
14:13:53 [Norm]
A-209-01: continued, ETA 29 Mar
14:14:03 [Norm]
Topic: Review of last call processor profile comments.
14:14:07 [Norm]
Norm: We only have one, from cmsmcq.
14:14:26 [Norm]
14:14:32 [Norm]
Norm: Two substantive issues, standalone and validation.
14:14:58 [Norm]
Norm: What about standalone?
14:15:09 [Norm]
...What are the cases?
14:15:40 [Norm]
...No external decls, it's irrelevant
14:16:07 [Norm]
...External decls, standalone=no, (the default) that's a validity constraint
14:16:17 [Norm]
...External decls, standalone=yes, then what we do is ok.
14:16:57 [Norm]
Henry: Perhaps we should ask Michael if he made the same mistake that I did, that standalone=no does not require a processor to read the external declarations.
14:17:24 [Norm]
Henry: We should also see if he made it more clear in his previous comments what he wanted.
14:20:18 [Norm]
14:21:16 [Norm]
Norm: Looking at Michael's comments, I think he has misinterpreted the spec.
14:21:37 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to respond to Micheal and see if we can come to the same place.
14:22:18 [Norm]
Alex: Reading Micheal's original comment, I think there are two interpretations. One is that these are things he thinks the XML Rec says and one is that these are the things he would like *us* to say.
14:22:52 [Norm]
Norm: You think perhaps Micheal is saying that *we* should enforce this behavior wrt to standalone.
14:23:20 [Norm]
Norm: The second issue he raises is validation, which he at least agrees we improved.
14:24:21 [Norm]
...I think Micheal makes a good point that it would be easy to read this spec and missunderstand that validation is forbidden.
14:24:44 [Norm]
...I wonder if we could improve things by mentioning validation in 2.3 and 2.4
14:25:31 [Norm]
...We could say in point 1 "non-validating or non-valdating"
14:26:22 [Norm]
Henry: We could add a note that says "this requirement is satisfied by any conformant validating parser"
14:28:43 [Norm]
Murray returns the discussion to standalone with the observation that the XML spec says there's an algorithm for turning standalone=no into standalone=yes
14:28:58 [Norm]
Some discussion of how "algorithm" is to be interpreted; does a validating parser suffice?
14:30:11 [Norm]
Norm: I'm not sure a validating parser covers the case of an invalid but well-formed document with standalone=no
14:31:00 [Norm]
Henry: I think my problem with the standalone declaration is that it's a significant increase in complexity for an area that's very little used.
14:31:51 [Norm]
Alex: What would standalone help us with?
14:32:15 [Norm]
Norm: I'm not sure what Micheal meant, so I'm not sure how to answer that.
14:33:35 [Norm]
Norm: In the basic and id profiles, standalone is irrelevant becase we don't read the external decls and it's a validity constraint and a validating parser can't be used to do the first two profiles.
14:35:47 [Norm]
Murray: I think what Michael is saying is what I've been saying, validatity and standalone=no are things that would change the result of processing.
14:35:59 [Norm]
...If you have a document that requires validation and/or requires fetching external subsets is going to result in a different document.
14:36:14 [Norm]
...And the truth value of that document changes depending on whether you validate or not.
14:36:32 [Norm]
Henry: That's why we put in the stuff about invariants, so we could be very clear that what you get may change.
14:38:17 [Norm]
Henry: Maybe we should make it clear that a validating processor cannot implement 2.1 and 2.2 if the documents have an external subset.
14:38:23 [Norm]
...Validating parsers *must* read the external subset.
14:40:18 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry to draft notes for 2.1 and 2.2 saying that a validating parser cannot be used if there's an external subset and to say in 2.3 and 2.4 explicitly that validation could be performed
14:41:42 [Norm]
Norm: Murray, what do you want to say about a standalone=no document with external decls if it's parsed by a basic or id processor.
14:41:54 [Norm]
Murray: I think I just want to say that you may have lost information.
14:42:45 [Norm]
Norm: I have no objection to adding a note to that effect, I just don't think changing behavior is within our remit.
14:43:05 [Norm]
Murray: I still think there should be a profile that takes in an XML document which was composed with a notion that it would be validated.
14:43:21 [Norm] it's truth value would be determined by that profile.
14:43:51 [Norm]
...But the WG doesn't agree with that position, that's fine. I think that Michael feels the same way. I think the amelioriting text will help.
14:45:02 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to draft notes for 2.1 and 2.2 to describe the consequences of information loss for a standalone=no document when it has external declarations.
14:45:30 [Norm]
Murray: What would be most satisfying to me is that if we had a profile that covered validation and then if we deprecated it in
14:46:19 [Norm]
Henry: I think we're doing better than that. The external declarations profile gives you the infoset you want, whether or not its validated, and then you can decide independently to validate it.
14:48:45 [Norm]
Norm: Perhaps a note to that effect in 2.3 would be a good idea.
14:50:03 [Norm]
Henry: In section 3, for class Extended perhaps we should say explicitly that may be absent under 2.1 and 2.2.
14:50:55 [Norm]
Topic: Michael also makes a bunch of editorial suggestions.
14:51:26 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm or Henry to implement Micheal's editorial changes, raising any issues we see, if any.
14:51:46 [Norm]
Topic: Progress on requirements/use cases
14:52:18 [Norm]
Norm: Murray are you interested in working on the use cases and requirements.
14:52:33 [Norm]
Murray: Yes. I was talking to Alex, and I think we might work on it together.
14:52:41 [Norm]
Alex: Yep.
14:52:47 [Norm]
Norm: Excellent.
14:53:36 [Norm]
Norm: Proposed ETA?
14:54:09 [Norm]
Norm: How about 12 April?
14:55:01 [jfuller]
jfuller has joined #xproc
14:56:07 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
14:56:11 [Norm]
None heard.
14:56:15 [Norm]
14:56:20 [Zakim]
14:56:23 [Zakim]
14:56:25 [Zakim]
14:56:25 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended
14:56:25 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, Alex_Milows, +1.778.440.aaaa, Murray, ht
14:56:25 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:56:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
14:56:45 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
14:57:34 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started
14:57:42 [Zakim]
+ +2072827aaaa
14:59:02 [jfuller]
i'm on telcon ...
14:59:08 [jfuller]
have I missed timings ?
14:59:58 [Zakim]
- +2072827aaaa
15:00:00 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended
15:00:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were +2072827aaaa
15:05:28 [jfuller]
I did
15:05:32 [jfuller]
15:05:35 [jfuller]
caio for now
15:12:34 [jfuller]
jfuller has joined #xproc
15:18:22 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
15:24:59 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
15:31:55 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
15:43:46 [alexmilowski_]
alexmilowski_ has joined #xproc
16:17:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
16:56:15 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
17:04:09 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
17:11:50 [jfuller]
jfuller has joined #xproc
17:13:44 [jfuller]
jfuller has joined #xproc
17:34:31 [jfuller]
jfuller has joined #xproc