14:56:43 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:56:43 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-xproc-irc 14:56:46 zakim, this will be xproc 14:56:46 ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes 14:57:05 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 14:57:05 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 14:57:05 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/01/24-agenda 14:57:05 Date: 24 Jan 2013 14:57:05 Meeting: 225 14:57:05 Chair: Norm 14:57:05 Scribe: Norm 14:57:06 ScribeNick: norm 14:57:21 zakim, passcode? 14:57:21 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Norm 14:57:25 XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started 14:57:32 +??P6 14:58:36 Norm has changed the topic to: XProc WG meeting 24 Jan: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/01/24-agenda 15:00:59 +??P19 15:01:10 zakim, ??p6 is Norm 15:01:10 +Norm; got it 15:01:33 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 15:01:41 +Alex_Milows 15:04:52 Regrets: Jim 15:05:13 -> http://doodle.com/fxhx3h99kquvz4qad73bgf2m/ 15:05:13 Vojtech has joined #xproc 15:05:54 +Vojtech 15:06:31 http://www.doodle.com/fxhx3h99kquvz4qa 15:06:32 http://doodle.com/fxhx3h99kquvz4qad73bgf2m/admin?#table 15:10:06 zakim, who's here? 15:10:07 On the phone I see Norm, ht, Alex_Milows, Vojtech 15:10:07 On IRC I see Vojtech, alexmilowski, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, ht, liam, caribou 15:10:12 Present: Norm, Henry, Alex, Vojtech 15:10:28 Topic: Accept this agenda? 15:10:29 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/01/24-agenda 15:10:33 jfuller has joined #xproc 15:10:37 Accepted. 15:10:41 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 15:10:41 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/01/17-minutes 15:10:46 +1 15:10:48 Accepted. 15:10:52 Topic: Next meeting: 24 Jan 2013 15:11:09 s/24/31/ 15:11:18 No regrets heard. 15:11:36 Propose to cancel: 7 and 14 Feb 15:11:41 Accepted. 15:12:16 Topic: Review of open action items 15:12:23 Norm: I culled a lot of items 15:12:53 -Norm 15:13:08 zakim, passcode? 15:13:08 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Norm 15:13:16 +??P6 15:13:21 zakim, ? is me 15:13:21 +Norm; got it 15:13:38 Henry: I haven't looked at 215-02 15:13:41 ...I will 15:13:56 ...I was working on 215-04 as the call started and will finish today 15:14:15 Norm: Alex, do you want to work on the use cases you're assigned? 15:14:20 Alex: Yes, I think those are good ones in the mix. 15:14:41 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 ...I'm not going to get to that real soon. 15:14:55 Norm: I think you're right 15:15:19 Alex: I'm happy to do that after I get back from Prague 15:15:53 ACTION: Norm to resurface getting the original use cases/requirements document refactored into a Note after XML Prague 15:16:17 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 ACTION: Norm to put p:zip/p:unzip steps on the agenda post-XML Prague 15:17:17 Toipc: XML Processor Profiles review 15:17:32 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html 15:18:18 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: I tried to go through the actions, the comments that Alex posted, and the document and I thought I got everything. 15:19:40 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2013Jan/0010.html 15:19:45 jfuller_ has joined #xproc 15:21:35 WG discusses the state of affairs 15:25:35 jfuller has joined #xproc 15:26:51 Norm wonders, wrt http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes, 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 http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action03 15:28:30 -Norm 15:28:52 +??P6 15:28:56 zakim, ? is me 15:28:56 +Norm; got it 15:29:16 Henry: Yes, I think just add that to the end of the note I added. 15:30:11 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: Ok, with a note to the effect that an invalid document won't return an infoset. 15:31:07 Alex: Depends on the validation: DTD or Schema. 15:31:15 Norm: Ok, I'll be careful about that 15:32:04 Norm: And we could add the note that Henry refers to after that in those minutes 15:32:14 Norm: Should I try both of those things? 15:32:18 Alex: Sounds good tome. 15:32:25 s/tome/to me/ 15:33:16 +1 15:38:35 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 Alex: We say "parser" instead of processor in the note in 2.1 15:38:53 Henry: That's probably a mistake. 15:39:02 Alex: We should fix that, we should say processor. 15:39:34 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html 15:40:35 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: I'll like to the term. 15:41:35 s/like/link/ 15:42:24 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 Henry: Yes 15:42:59 ACTION: Norm to implement the changes proposed and send them to the WG for review in time for next weeks' meeting 15:43:03 s/weeks'/week's/ 15:43:41 Norm: Any other discussion of processor profiles this week? 15:43:47 Norm: None heard 15:44:12 -Norm 15:44:23 +??P2 15:44:28 zakim, ?p is me 15:44:28 sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named '?p' 15:44:33 zakim, ? is me 15:44:33 +Norm; got it 15:44:55 Alex: Could we step back and have a broader discussion 15:45:46 Henry: I thought there was an emerging consensus that we should try for the all-XML approach 15:45:52 ...I'd rather frame it that way 15:47:23 Vojtech: I'm willing to try the all XML way first if we can manage it 15:48:16 ...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 Alex: I have an email. 15:48:58 The WG reviews -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Oct/0006.html 15:50:18 Alex: It does rely on some sort of resource manager. 15:51:49 Norm: Does it actually rely on special URIs? 15:51:58 Alex: It's up to the implementation. 15:53:27 +1 general gist of conversation 15:53:35 Norm: The question I have is, is there ever any need to distingusih between the XML or the referenced binary? 15:53:55 Alex: It does mean more works for our steps. 15:54:44 Norm: So you can't ever post the XML 15:54:54 Alex: Or you have an extra bit of markup that says which to do. 15:55:27 ...You might want, with a data URI for example, to be able to save the XML or save the binary 15:56:16 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 Topic: Any other business? 15:57:03 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 Adjourned. 15:57:25 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 15:57:28 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:57:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-xproc-minutes.html Norm 15:57:28 -Alex_Milows 15:57:30 -Vojtech 15:57:36 -Norm 15:57:41 -ht 15:57:43 XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended 15:57:43 Attendees were Norm, ht, Alex_Milows, Vojtech 17:00:44 Norm has joined #xproc 17:14:48 Norm, I replied to your telecon time mail 17:14:57 thank you 17:15:25 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 9a CST is 10a EST so I think we're hosed 17:16:15 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 well, you could have 10..11am but you couldn't run over 17:16:35 ok. thanks. 17:16:41 we rarely run over so I think we can live with that 17:16:51 hmm, well 17:16:52 yes, telcons without zakim are awful 17:16:59 maybe 9:30 to 10:30am would work 17:17:07 but 9-10 wouldn't? 17:17:18 Eastern time 17:17:18 9-10eastern fine too 17:17:26 sorry, I keep getting confused 17:17:59 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 we're talking about 10-11 eastern 17:18:20 EST is one hour later than CST 17:18:35 yeah, it's borderline, but I can request it and see what happens 17:18:36 PST is two hours earlier than CST 17:18:45 thanks 17:18:47 ok. let's see how the email thread runs before you do that 17:18:52 ok 17:19:11 damn these railways, it was much easier when the clocks didn't all have to be in sync :-) 17:19:48 right! 17:19:53 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 heh 17:39:16 ht has joined #xproc 18:00:34 Zakim has left #xproc