IRC log of xproc on 2013-01-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:56:43 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:56:46 [Norm]
zakim, this will be xproc
14:56:46 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
14:57:05 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
14:57:05 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:57:05 [Norm]
14:57:05 [Norm]
Date: 24 Jan 2013
14:57:05 [Norm]
Meeting: 225
14:57:05 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:57:05 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:57:06 [Norm]
ScribeNick: norm
14:57:21 [Norm]
zakim, passcode?
14:57:21 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, Norm
14:57:25 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started
14:57:32 [Zakim]
14:58:36 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: XProc WG meeting 24 Jan:
15:00:59 [Zakim]
15:01:10 [Norm]
zakim, ??p6 is Norm
15:01:10 [Zakim]
+Norm; got it
15:01:33 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:01:41 [Zakim]
15:04:52 [Norm]
Regrets: Jim
15:05:13 [Norm]
15:05:13 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
15:05:54 [Zakim]
15:06:31 [alexmilowski]
15:06:32 [Norm]
15:10:06 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
15:10:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, ht, Alex_Milows, Vojtech
15:10:07 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Vojtech, alexmilowski, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, ht, liam, caribou
15:10:12 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Henry, Alex, Vojtech
15:10:28 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:10:29 [Norm]
15:10:33 [jfuller]
jfuller has joined #xproc
15:10:37 [Norm]
15:10:41 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:10:41 [Norm]
15:10:46 [jfuller]
15:10:48 [Norm]
15:10:52 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: 24 Jan 2013
15:11:09 [Norm]
15:11:18 [Norm]
No regrets heard.
15:11:36 [Norm]
Propose to cancel: 7 and 14 Feb
15:11:41 [Norm]
15:12:16 [Norm]
Topic: Review of open action items
15:12:23 [Norm]
Norm: I culled a lot of items
15:12:53 [Zakim]
15:13:08 [Norm]
zakim, passcode?
15:13:08 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, Norm
15:13:16 [Zakim]
15:13:21 [Norm]
zakim, ? is me
15:13:21 [Zakim]
+Norm; got it
15:13:38 [Norm]
Henry: I haven't looked at 215-02
15:13:41 [Norm]
...I will
15:13:56 [Norm]
...I was working on 215-04 as the call started and will finish today
15:14:15 [Norm]
Norm: Alex, do you want to work on the use cases you're assigned?
15:14:20 [Norm]
Alex: Yes, I think those are good ones in the mix.
15:14:41 [Norm]
Alex: I think we need to sort through all the work we did earlier. I think we should publish that as a note.
15:14:48 [Norm]
...I'm not going to get to that real soon.
15:14:55 [Norm]
Norm: I think you're right
15:15:19 [Norm]
Alex: I'm happy to do that after I get back from Prague
15:15:53 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to resurface getting the original use cases/requirements document refactored into a Note after XML Prague
15:16:17 [Norm]
Norm: I'll still draft a note for my steps and we should put zip/unzip back on the list, I guess
15:16:28 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to put p:zip/p:unzip steps on the agenda post-XML Prague
15:17:17 [Norm]
Toipc: XML Processor Profiles review
15:17:32 [Norm]
15:18:18 [Norm]
Norm: Let's cut to the chase if we can, are the two actions on *this* agenda, all that's left to be done?
15:19:23 [Norm]
Norm: I tried to go through the actions, the comments that Alex posted, and the document and I thought I got everything.
15:19:40 [Norm]
15:19:45 [jfuller_]
jfuller_ has joined #xproc
15:21:35 [Norm]
WG discusses the state of affairs
15:25:35 [jfuller]
jfuller has joined #xproc
15:26:51 [Norm]
Norm wonders, wrt, if the note in 2.3 would simply be: "The external decl profile, without validation, gives the complete infoset of a well-formed XML document, wtih validation, it gives the complete infoset of a well-formed, and validate ddocument"
15:27:12 [alexmilowski]
15:28:30 [Zakim]
15:28:52 [Zakim]
15:28:56 [Norm]
zakim, ? is me
15:28:56 [Zakim]
+Norm; got it
15:29:16 [Norm]
Henry: Yes, I think just add that to the end of the note I added.
15:30:11 [Norm]
Henry: But it's not actually true. If you interpret the external decl profile with validation as meaning use a validating processor that processes external decl then you may not get anything.
15:30:19 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, with a note to the effect that an invalid document won't return an infoset.
15:31:07 [Norm]
Alex: Depends on the validation: DTD or Schema.
15:31:15 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, I'll be careful about that
15:32:04 [Norm]
Norm: And we could add the note that Henry refers to after that in those minutes
15:32:14 [Norm]
Norm: Should I try both of those things?
15:32:18 [Norm]
Alex: Sounds good tome.
15:32:25 [Norm]
s/tome/to me/
15:33:16 [jfuller]
15:38:35 [Norm]
Henry: The way the proposed text above is written, the distinction we want to make is validating processor. A non-validating processor conformant to th EDP, gives the complete infoset of a document. A validating processor may give nothing, but if it gives something, it will..."
15:38:49 [Norm]
Alex: We say "parser" instead of processor in the note in 2.1
15:38:53 [Norm]
Henry: That's probably a mistake.
15:39:02 [Norm]
Alex: We should fix that, we should say processor.
15:39:34 [Norm]
15:40:35 [Norm]
Alex: Do we need to say something about this being DTD parsing in the sense of the XML Rec and not other forms of schema validation
15:41:31 [Norm]
Norm: I'll like to the term.
15:41:35 [Norm]
15:42:24 [Norm]
Norm: Are we satisfied that with these changes, assuming we like the editor's choice of words, we've completed our tasks and we're ready to ask the reviewers to look at it again and see if they're satisfied?
15:42:45 [Norm]
Henry: Yes
15:42:59 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to implement the changes proposed and send them to the WG for review in time for next weeks' meeting
15:43:03 [Norm]
15:43:41 [Norm]
Norm: Any other discussion of processor profiles this week?
15:43:47 [Norm]
Norm: None heard
15:44:12 [Zakim]
15:44:23 [Zakim]
15:44:28 [Norm]
zakim, ?p is me
15:44:28 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named '?p'
15:44:33 [Norm]
zakim, ? is me
15:44:33 [Zakim]
+Norm; got it
15:44:55 [Norm]
Alex: Could we step back and have a broader discussion
15:45:46 [Norm]
Henry: I thought there was an emerging consensus that we should try for the all-XML approach
15:45:52 [Norm]
...I'd rather frame it that way
15:47:23 [Norm]
Vojtech: I'm willing to try the all XML way first if we can manage it
15:48:16 [Norm]
...What I proposed is allowing non-XML data to flow through the pipeline, but it does have some weird consequences that I'm not that comfortable with; XProc is a an XML processing language, if we can process other kinds of data and maintain the XML flavor, I'm in favor of that.
15:48:23 [Norm]
Alex: I have an email.
15:48:58 [Norm]
The WG reviews ->
15:50:18 [Norm]
Alex: It does rely on some sort of resource manager.
15:51:49 [Norm]
Norm: Does it actually rely on special URIs?
15:51:58 [Norm]
Alex: It's up to the implementation.
15:53:27 [jfuller]
+1 general gist of conversation
15:53:35 [Norm]
Norm: The question I have is, is there ever any need to distingusih between the XML or the referenced binary?
15:53:55 [Norm]
Alex: It does mean more works for our steps.
15:54:44 [Norm]
Norm: So you can't ever post the XML
15:54:54 [Norm]
Alex: Or you have an extra bit of markup that says which to do.
15:55:27 [Norm]
...You might want, with a data URI for example, to be able to save the XML or save the binary
15:56:16 [Norm]
Norm: Let's try some email discussion to see if we can decide if we need to make this distinction and if we do, how we might do it cleanly.
15:56:46 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:57:03 [Norm]
Norm: We were going to talk about the XProcathon, but let's wait for Jim next week or do it in email
15:57:21 [Norm]
15:57:25 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
15:57:28 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:57:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
15:57:28 [Zakim]
15:57:30 [Zakim]
15:57:36 [Zakim]
15:57:41 [Zakim]
15:57:43 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended
15:57:43 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, ht, Alex_Milows, Vojtech
17:00:44 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
17:14:48 [liam]
Norm, I replied to your telecon time mail
17:14:57 [Norm]
thank you
17:15:25 [liam]
Zakim actually fills up on Wednesday mornings so between about 11:am and 2:30pm ET wouldn't work, but outside that should be OK
17:16:07 [Norm]
9a CST is 10a EST so I think we're hosed
17:16:15 [liam]
Zakim is popular but after sitting in on an Oasis call and waiting for the tedium of the roll call to be over I can see why :-)
17:16:29 [liam]
well, you could have 10..11am but you couldn't run over
17:16:35 [Norm]
ok. thanks.
17:16:41 [Norm]
we rarely run over so I think we can live with that
17:16:51 [liam]
hmm, well
17:16:52 [Norm]
yes, telcons without zakim are awful
17:16:59 [liam]
maybe 9:30 to 10:30am would work
17:17:07 [Norm]
but 9-10 wouldn't?
17:17:18 [liam]
Eastern time
17:17:18 [liam]
9-10eastern fine too
17:17:26 [Norm]
sorry, I keep getting confused
17:17:59 [liam]
we might get turned down if we request 10..11 eastern, but I can ask. I thoguht 9 CST was 8am ET
17:18:09 [Norm]
we're talking about 10-11 eastern
17:18:20 [Norm]
EST is one hour later than CST
17:18:35 [liam]
yeah, it's borderline, but I can request it and see what happens
17:18:36 [Norm]
PST is two hours earlier than CST
17:18:45 [liam]
17:18:47 [Norm]
ok. let's see how the email thread runs before you do that
17:18:52 [liam]
17:19:11 [liam]
damn these railways, it was much easier when the clocks didn't all have to be in sync :-)
17:19:48 [Norm]
17:19:53 [liam]
or as a university porter said to me at Oxford, "the clock's five minutes behind on account of Oxford bein' five minutes West of Greenwich, see"
17:20:01 [Norm]
17:39:16 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
18:00:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc