13:55:36 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 13:55:36 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/13-xproc-irc 13:55:44 Zakim has joined #xproc 13:55:46 zakim, this will be xproc 13:55:46 ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 13:55:54 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 13:55:54 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 13:55:54 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/03/06-agenda 13:55:54 Date: 13 Mar 2013 13:55:54 Meeting: 228 13:55:54 Chair: Norm 13:55:55 Scribe: Norm 13:55:55 ScribeNick: norm 13:58:33 XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started 13:58:41 + +420.7.282.7.aaaa 13:59:40 +Alex_Milows 14:00:07 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 14:00:24 mute me 14:00:25 zakim, passcode? 14:00:25 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Norm 14:00:36 +Norm 14:00:56 I tried the google "speak to call thing", "call zakim" -> "call the king" *snort* 14:01:11 LOL 14:01:11 zakim, whos' here? 14:01:11 I don't understand your question, Norm. 14:01:15 zakim, who's here? 14:01:15 On the phone I see +420.7.282.7.aaaa (muted), Alex_Milows, Norm 14:01:16 On IRC I see alexmilowski, Zakim, RRSAgent, Norm, jfuller, liam 14:01:19 zakim, aaaa is jfuller 14:01:19 +jfuller; got it 14:01:44 hello 14:02:41 not I 14:02:47 :-) 14:03:15 ht has joined #xproc 14:03:59 +??P24 14:04:33 zakim, who's here? 14:04:33 On the phone I see jfuller, Alex_Milows, Norm, ht 14:04:34 On IRC I see ht, alexmilowski, Zakim, RRSAgent, Norm, jfuller, liam 14:04:55 ht, it's you 14:05:24 -ht 14:05:38 is it open source zakim ? 14:06:31 Present: Norm, Alex, Jim, Henry 14:08:41 +??P7 14:09:17 Topic: Accept this agenda? 14:09:17 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/03/13-agenda 14:09:41 Alex proposes to discuss the Processor Profiles document. 14:10:10 Jim has some feedback on XProc from a group of students. 14:10:24 Accepted with those changes. 14:10:29 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 14:10:29 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/02/20-minutes 14:10:37 Accepted. 14:10:41 Topic: Next meeting: 20 Mar 2013? 14:10:53 No regrets heard 14:11:02 Topic: Review of open action items 14:11:25 A-217-01: Completed 14:11:34 A-217-02: Completed 14:11:39 A-219-01: Completed 14:12:05 Topic: Use cases and requirements 14:12:10 Norm: Anything to say, Jim? 14:12:27 Jim: No progress so far. 14:12:45 Alex: There's one outstanding action item, the DSDL one. 14:14:19 Norm: I've put that in the actions file for next time. Not sure if I've done that. 14:14:44 Alex: I think we could call 5.8 out of scope. 14:14:48 -jfuller 14:15:02 arg ... 14:15:04 ...It's about the processing model, it's not really about pipelines. 14:15:13 ...It's about things we didn't do in the processing model document. 14:15:16 Norm: I'm ok with dropping it. 14:15:39 Alex: And 5.26 is a V.next feature. So that leaves us with 2 left over. 14:15:51 tiny wisps of smoke emitting from the back of my mobile phone ... now that cant be good 14:16:00 battery well and trully gone 14:16:08 seeing if I can run with adaptor only 14:16:11 brb somehow 14:16:11 Alex: 5.20 and 5.24 are the same thing and 5.25 is probably doable. 14:16:33 ...And we have Norm's action for the other one. 14:17:32 Norm: So we're in good shape for V 1.0 use cases. 14:17:52 Alex: I think so, we need to document the new stuff. We have one for non-XML documents, I did the epub and dsig steps. 14:18:19 ...We should collect some more 14:20:20 Alex: My idea is that we put a table in the document with pointers to all the V1.0 use cases that I collected in email. Then if there was significant discussion, that we record those things in the use case document. 14:20:46 Norm: I think that's a perfect plan. 14:21:16 ACTION A-228-01: Jim to incorporate such a table into the new Use Cases and Requirements document. 14:21:29 ACTION: A-228-01 Jim to incorporate such a table into the new Use Cases and Requirements document. 14:21:39 Topic: Zip and unzip steps 14:21:50 Norm: I don't think Jim has made any progress and his phone has died so... 14:22:14 Norm: Alex, you observed that we should make sure the steps can do EPUB, which I think is true. 14:23:02 Alex: I think we should publish a use case that documents those two requirements. 14:23:28 ACTION: A-228-02 Norm to send email documenting the EPUB requirements on a ZIP step. 14:23:36 no results on any of my actions 14:23:59 Alex: For ZIP and DSIG these are going to be Notes, right? 14:24:32 yes notes is how I am doing ZIP/UNZIP 14:24:33 Norm: Right, at least in the short term, Notes are the cheap and cheerful way to publish them. 14:24:52 Alex: I think we should go back to Murray's document and see if there are useful bits we put in there. 14:25:10 Norm: Sure. 14:25:29 Alex: I sent out a catagorization of all the extension steps that I found. 14:25:59 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Feb/0011.html 14:26:07 Alex: I wonder if we should look at those 14:26:35 Norm: I'm happy to do some notes. 14:26:51 Alex: Let's look at that list and see if we can pick out the high priority ones. 14:27:22 Alex: I can give my opinions. 14:27:24 Norm: I'll do the same. 14:27:40 Topic: Bugzilla spec bugs and use cases 14:28:04 Norm: We've got a bunch of bugs now and I wonder if we want to think about how to attack these. 14:29:12 Alex; We should address these and decide how we're going to fix them. 14:29:47 Norm: For the bugs on the 1.0 spec, I think they'll turn into errata. 14:30:58 hehe 14:31:02 Norm: I'll sort them and put them on the agenda; we can plan to do a few every week. Some of them are quite detailed and would benefit from review prior to the call. 14:31:23 ACTION: A-228-03 Norm to ask the submitter if any of them are higher priority that others 14:31:45 -> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20995 14:33:19 Alex: Ooh, the dtd-validate is ugly. 14:33:25 Norm: I think we want document-uri to be set by p:load 14:33:35 Alex: We have the issue that documents with the same URI are just not the same document. 14:34:51 ...I also think we need to clarify the scope of evaluation for an expression like this. We should try to make it true by narrowing the scope. 14:35:54 Henry asks about dtd-validation. Norm proposes vs. example. 14:36:19 Henry: But we spent a lot of time getting to the decision that we did not want to impose the XQuery/XSLT constraint that documents be immutable. 14:37:05 Norm: A narrow reading of the XPath spec suggests that this is only true of documents returned by the fn:collection() function. 14:37:41 Henry: We need to investigate that, if it's true then we need to add a note to 1.0 saying that you might think XPath doesn't allow us to do this but it does. 14:38:57 ...For 1.1, I think the question is still on the table. What I would say, and I'm not sure how this plays with fn:doc. Looking at XPath, I'm not sure it makes sense to get the same node. And if it's the same document, how is "same" defined. 14:39:31 ...I understood the XQuery/XSLT constraint to mean that you only got the document once. The fact that you built to different data models from it is a separate question. 14:40:02 Norm: We should consider the semantics of the XQuery validate expression 14:41:41 ...The p:xslt step lets you control the default collection, so I think even in a narrow reading you could write a pipeline that validates this constraint. 14:42:04 Alex: You can definitely have two different documents with the same URI. 14:42:37 Henry: There is the presumption of no-change, steps that don't have to change properties shouldn't. 14:43:23 Some discussion of the last paragraph about p:identity 14:43:45 Alex: If you reference a document with p:document and then p:load, they get the same base URI and they're just different. 14:44:18 Norm: I think we have to say that the document changes in the pipeline, that's what the pipeline is for. 14:44:36 jfuller_ has joined #xproc 14:44:49 Alex: In the context of a single expression, the document should be stable. 14:45:11 ...Just in one with-option expression. 14:45:19 q+ to challenge Norm's statement about document-uri 14:45:20 ..Whether or not fn:doc should work is a whole different question. 14:45:41 ...If that's not clear, then we need to make that clear. 14:45:46 ack ht 14:45:46 ht, you wanted to challenge Norm's statement about document-uri 14:46:10 Henry: I'm not immediately convinced that we need to say anything about document-uri 14:46:49 ...In an XPath 1.0 implementation, the document-uri doesn't even exist. I don't even know what the distinction is between the base-uri of the root of the document and the document-uri. 14:47:00 ...So it's not entirely clear to me that we have to say something about document-uri. 14:47:23 "Except where the semantics of a step explicitly require changes, processors are required to preserve the information in the documents and fragments they manipulate. In particular, the information corresponding to the [Infoset] properties [attributes], [base URI], [children], [local name], [namespace name], [normalized value], [owner], and [parent] must be preserved." 14:48:48 Alex: I think using fn:doc() in an expression in, for example, p:with-option may be an open issue. What does that mean? 14:48:55 So, yes, maybe we need an [implicit-]XDM-construction section 14:50:18 Norm: In V.next, we're going to be XDM specific so we may have to deal with the document-uri question. 14:51:17 Henry: My feeling is we've had part of this conversation before. This is why we have to be very careful if we do anything with a "resource manager" to be clear about whether or not pipeline authors can know the URIs of documents in the manager. 14:51:37 ...It would be impossible to do the dependency tracking if you weren't careful. 14:52:21 gives up ... going to phone shop ... 14:52:58 Alex: Should p:document href=foo.xml and fn:doc('foo.xml') return the same document? It's only load that could do something different. 14:53:44 Henry: I don't want to go there. I don't want to get to the point where if I write a stylesheet which consists entirely of a template that matches / and returns fn:doc() with a URI. 14:54:36 ...We don't want to say that the document returned by that stylesheet is the same as any other document we loaded. We don't want to get in bed with the XQuery/XSLT consistency story. 14:56:59 Henry: In a single *expression* if you use fn:doc() twice with the same string, then you're in the scope of the XPath gaurantee. 14:57:56 ...I think it's reasonable to discuss if we want to give a gaurantee with a larger scope. For example, "one byte sequence was parsed" for that URI in the same pipeline. 14:58:51 Further discussion of caches and such 15:00:01 ACTION: A-228-03 Norm to ask the commenter about the last paragraph of bug 20995 15:00:10 Further discussion of this bug will be necessary 15:00:15 Vojtech has joined #xproc 15:00:18 Topic: Any other business 15:00:32 None heard. 15:00:38 Thanks :) 15:00:41 Adjourned 15:00:44 -Alex_Milows 15:00:48 -ht 15:00:52 -Norm 15:00:54 XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended 15:00:54 Attendees were +420.7.282.7.aaaa, Alex_Milows, Norm, jfuller, ht 15:02:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:02:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/13-xproc-minutes.html Norm 17:00:40 Zakim has left #xproc