See also: IRC log
<fsasaki> scribe: Yves_
Felix: proposal is Thursday 4pm
... that's 5pm CET
... that's 9am MST
<Clemens_> happy new year together
all ok with the new day
Jirka: will have conflict
Felix: will do a Doodle for the time of the call
Felix: several comments, but none
from outside the WG
... can't move forward in that case
Jorg: maybe the comment period was a bad one
... should extend until Jan-18
all: ok with that
Felix: please nudge your
... we will get comments from the i18n WG
... for sure. but we need more
Dave: can people comment that they have no comments?
... endorsment is fine
Felix: brought up by Phil before
... no disagreement to add the new value
... no additional support either
DF: seems to be a normative change, no?
... need a strong reason to do the change
... any supporter in addition to Phil?
DF: should try to avoid normative
... wait if it's really needed
Phil: being additional value
makes it easier
... no back compatibility issue, etc.
... we have a definite need for it.
Felix: but it's a borderline
... would have to justify the rational
... would drop it now, but keep it open
... you could try to fine supporters
Felix: other tool to consume/generate that data
Felix: a change in the
Disambiguation data category
... 0180 email is the right link
... this is dropping an attribute
... but ok because to test or processing is changed by it
DF: looks like an omission correction
Felix: will do the edit after the call
Felix: this one is to clarify the global provenance
<fsasaki> The attribute provenanceRecordsRefPointer does not apply to HTML as local markup is provided for direct annotation in HTML. Because that information is the only one in the provRule element, the global rule does not apply to HTML.
Felix: it explains why the global rule does not apply to HTML
Dave: sounds like a
clarification, not a substantive change
... original wording was close to the LQI text
... maybe we need to look at it there too
Felix: for LQI the requirements
... that's why we have different cases
... best practices will be important
<fsasaki> "If there is no rules element in an XML document, a prefixed ITS version attribute (e.g. its:version) MUST be provided at the root element of the
Felix: this one is to allow more flexible location of the version
Felix: not only in the root, but
anywhere in the upper part of the tree of a given node
... not a sever change
... just change checking before you do the process
Shaun: would require to change
... not too bad, but it's mean changing the code
Felix: means a difference between 1.0 and 2.0
Yves: not sure there is a problem
Shaun: if it's in the root, and it's an ITS 1.0 processor it's invalid
DF: 1.0 requires it in the
... but what is the gaol
... what is compliant to our principles?
<fsasaki> yves_: 1.0 processor can't check 2.0 subset
shaun: 2.0 processor should
process 1.0, but not the reverse
... and here 1.0 processor can know the case
Felix: need to have note in the spc
<scribe> ACTION: Yves to propose notes for the version location change [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/07-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-382 - Propose notes for the version location change [on Yves Savourel - due 2013-01-14].
<daveL> FYI: TCD has rejoined the internet
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
yves: I re-raised issue I raised
... about using XSD regex for allowed characters
... earlier we started with a subset of that
... we then moved to the XSD character class
... I didn't disagree strongly at that point so that other implmeneters can work on this
... I think it's an interop issue
... it would be better for the allowedchararacter class to be processed with other engines than xsd
... we can have a subset that works with dotnet, java, xsd etc.
... the only difference is that the user might have to change the way to write a regex
... but that's not a big deal, the interop we gain is more important
shaun: you are going to say that
you will have the subset
... but tools need to be required to check that they conform from to the subset
yves: the schema would ensure that the expression is valid or not
phil: agree with Yves'
... having to figure out equivalent regex syntax can be hard
shaun: in general I agree with
... just worried about the verification of the subset
felix: would we have a volunteer to help defining the regex subset?
shaun: I could do that
<scribe> scribe: Yves
Felix: this change may be seen as normative
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to give heads up to W3C about the possible change [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/07-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-383 - Give heads up to W3C about the possible change [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-14].
DF: is it absolute that one such
change would force a new revision
... is it a problem to have another LC?
Felix: there is a difference between extending the LC period and doing a new publication
DF: agree, this change seems big
and warrant a new publication
... would hope we can do without
... because it brings additional feature change often
Jirka: this change is not so big,
each XSD-based implementation will be compatible
... with the old syntax
... using a sub-set is compatible
DF: so we would not break anything?
Jirka: only issue would be if
current instances use special XSD faeture
... but that's not the case
Jorg: with sub-set an XSD RE
would be ok
... need to explain what kind of RE engine are supported by the sub-set
Christian: does the sub-set has the same expressive power?
Yves: from examples, yes.
DF: a formal proof would be an
agrument to not do a new LC
... even if we have a formal proof that the change does not affect the capability, the spec needs a new LC?
... e.g using the Unicode blocks would be 'broken'
... basically it's a matter of negoiation with the w3c mgmt
DF: seems the discussion go back
... so what is the new evidence is the question.
... seems people have different view at different time
felix: from implementer it's
unlikely to go back to XSD RE
... no-one is pushing in that direction
felix: so we wait to see the regex from Shaun/yves
Felix: worked on the test suite
... did you have a time to look at it?
... was proposing to drop the Google doc and replace it with an XML doc
Felix: automatically generated from the test suite results
Felix: and the HTML page would be
... this way a simple stylesheet can re-generate the output from the developer outputs
Dave: appreciate the work
leroy: agree, looks fine
... need to finish the corrections from Jirka
... add a few test files
... and after that I can look at it
... should be able to work on it by end of week
Felix: so by next monday we can
deprecate the Google doc and use the XML output
... it would be on Github as well
Felix: need input test cases for
some data categories
... see the list
... M3 deadline is at the end of January
Felix: changes in the suite are documented in the above link
Felix: we'll have confirmation
from fredrik (ENLASO) that he'll be there
... Dave as well?
Dave: leroy should be able to
... are we presenting this as a MLW event?
Felix: pre-conference day, 1.5h
... Karl also said he would be available
... need to distribute the work between those people
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to make agenda proposal for Prague meeting about the XML prague day [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/07-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-384 - Make agenda proposal for Prague meeting about the XML prague day [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-14].
Karl: do i need to register?
... fee is small
felix: this is ok to use the LT-Web budget for this
<Jirka> Registration for XML Prague http://www.xmlprague.cz/conference-registration/
Clemens: can we access the full conference for 40 Euro?
Jirka: yes, but not to lunches
and social events
... for that it's 100 Euros
Felix: anyone else?
DF: will try see if it's needed
Felix: this is about demoing
... good opportunity to bridge to the content world
DF: yes, good way to contact XML people
Felix: Prague F2F is soon
... let's talk about the EC-specific parts.
Felix: need input from Ankit
Felix: MT harvesting tool taks: any update?
Ankit: started to work with Cocomore on this
Felix: talked to Clemens about this, but no info on the tool
Ankit: we need to data to make
... by end of January we should have prototype
Karl: Not quite sure
Felix: Ankit let me know if you
don't get info from Clemens
... david: any update on roundtipping with XLIFF?
DF: yes, should be able to provide that Wednesday
Phil: what info will you have on
... does it includes the mapping?
DF: we have a working
... part of it is the mapping, but not frozen
Felix: the task is about a prototype
DF: Q1 is the time when we'll
work on this
... we have work in progress
Felix: anything else?