IRC log of xproc on 2013-03-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:55:36 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
13:55:36 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:55:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #xproc
13:55:46 [Norm]
zakim, this will be xproc
13:55:46 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
13:55:54 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
13:55:54 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
13:55:54 [Norm]
13:55:54 [Norm]
Date: 13 Mar 2013
13:55:54 [Norm]
Meeting: 228
13:55:54 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
13:55:55 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
13:55:55 [Norm]
ScribeNick: norm
13:58:33 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started
13:58:41 [Zakim]
+ +420.7.282.7.aaaa
13:59:40 [Zakim]
14:00:07 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
14:00:24 [jfuller]
mute me
14:00:25 [Norm]
zakim, passcode?
14:00:25 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, Norm
14:00:36 [Zakim]
14:00:56 [Norm]
I tried the google "speak to call thing", "call zakim" -> "call the king" *snort*
14:01:11 [alexmilowski]
14:01:11 [Norm]
zakim, whos' here?
14:01:11 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, Norm.
14:01:15 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
14:01:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +420.7.282.7.aaaa (muted), Alex_Milows, Norm
14:01:16 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alexmilowski, Zakim, RRSAgent, Norm, jfuller, liam
14:01:19 [Norm]
zakim, aaaa is jfuller
14:01:19 [Zakim]
+jfuller; got it
14:01:44 [jfuller]
14:02:41 [jfuller]
not I
14:02:47 [Norm]
14:03:15 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
14:03:59 [Zakim]
14:04:33 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
14:04:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jfuller, Alex_Milows, Norm, ht
14:04:34 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ht, alexmilowski, Zakim, RRSAgent, Norm, jfuller, liam
14:04:55 [Norm]
ht, it's you
14:05:24 [Zakim]
14:05:38 [jfuller]
is it open source zakim ?
14:06:31 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Alex, Jim, Henry
14:08:41 [Zakim]
14:09:17 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
14:09:17 [Norm]
14:09:41 [Norm]
Alex proposes to discuss the Processor Profiles document.
14:10:10 [Norm]
Jim has some feedback on XProc from a group of students.
14:10:24 [Norm]
Accepted with those changes.
14:10:29 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
14:10:29 [Norm]
14:10:37 [Norm]
14:10:41 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: 20 Mar 2013?
14:10:53 [Norm]
No regrets heard
14:11:02 [Norm]
Topic: Review of open action items
14:11:25 [Norm]
A-217-01: Completed
14:11:34 [Norm]
A-217-02: Completed
14:11:39 [Norm]
A-219-01: Completed
14:12:05 [Norm]
Topic: Use cases and requirements
14:12:10 [Norm]
Norm: Anything to say, Jim?
14:12:27 [Norm]
Jim: No progress so far.
14:12:45 [Norm]
Alex: There's one outstanding action item, the DSDL one.
14:14:19 [Norm]
Norm: I've put that in the actions file for next time. Not sure if I've done that.
14:14:44 [Norm]
Alex: I think we could call 5.8 out of scope.
14:14:48 [Zakim]
14:15:02 [jfuller]
arg ...
14:15:04 [Norm]
...It's about the processing model, it's not really about pipelines.
14:15:13 [Norm]
...It's about things we didn't do in the processing model document.
14:15:16 [Norm]
Norm: I'm ok with dropping it.
14:15:39 [Norm]
Alex: And 5.26 is a feature. So that leaves us with 2 left over.
14:15:51 [jfuller]
tiny wisps of smoke emitting from the back of my mobile phone ... now that cant be good
14:16:00 [jfuller]
battery well and trully gone
14:16:08 [jfuller]
seeing if I can run with adaptor only
14:16:11 [jfuller]
brb somehow
14:16:11 [Norm]
Alex: 5.20 and 5.24 are the same thing and 5.25 is probably doable.
14:16:33 [Norm]
...And we have Norm's action for the other one.
14:17:32 [Norm]
Norm: So we're in good shape for V 1.0 use cases.
14:17:52 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
...We should collect some more
14:20:20 [Norm]
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]
Norm: I think that's a perfect plan.
14:21:16 [Norm]
ACTION A-228-01: Jim to incorporate such a table into the new Use Cases and Requirements document.
14:21:29 [Norm]
ACTION: A-228-01 Jim to incorporate such a table into the new Use Cases and Requirements document.
14:21:39 [Norm]
Topic: Zip and unzip steps
14:21:50 [Norm]
Norm: I don't think Jim has made any progress and his phone has died so...
14:22:14 [Norm]
Norm: Alex, you observed that we should make sure the steps can do EPUB, which I think is true.
14:23:02 [Norm]
Alex: I think we should publish a use case that documents those two requirements.
14:23:28 [Norm]
ACTION: A-228-02 Norm to send email documenting the EPUB requirements on a ZIP step.
14:23:36 [jfuller]
no results on any of my actions
14:23:59 [Norm]
Alex: For ZIP and DSIG these are going to be Notes, right?
14:24:32 [jfuller]
yes notes is how I am doing ZIP/UNZIP
14:24:33 [Norm]
Norm: Right, at least in the short term, Notes are the cheap and cheerful way to publish them.
14:24:52 [Norm]
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]
Norm: Sure.
14:25:29 [Norm]
Alex: I sent out a catagorization of all the extension steps that I found.
14:25:59 [Norm]
14:26:07 [Norm]
Alex: I wonder if we should look at those
14:26:35 [Norm]
Norm: I'm happy to do some notes.
14:26:51 [Norm]
Alex: Let's look at that list and see if we can pick out the high priority ones.
14:27:22 [Norm]
Alex: I can give my opinions.
14:27:24 [Norm]
Norm: I'll do the same.
14:27:40 [Norm]
Topic: Bugzilla spec bugs and use cases
14:28:04 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
Alex; We should address these and decide how we're going to fix them.
14:29:47 [Norm]
Norm: For the bugs on the 1.0 spec, I think they'll turn into errata.
14:30:58 [jfuller]
14:31:02 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
ACTION: A-228-03 Norm to ask the submitter if any of them are higher priority that others
14:31:45 [Norm]
14:33:19 [Norm]
Alex: Ooh, the dtd-validate is ugly.
14:33:25 [Norm]
Norm: I think we want document-uri to be set by p:load
14:33:35 [Norm]
Alex: We have the issue that documents with the same URI are just not the same document.
14:34:51 [Norm]
...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 [Norm]
Henry asks about dtd-validation. Norm proposes <doc> vs. <doc defattr="value"> example.
14:36:19 [Norm]
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]
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 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
...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 [Norm]
...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]
Norm: We should consider the semantics of the XQuery validate expression
14:41:41 [Norm]
...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 [Norm]
Alex: You can definitely have two different documents with the same URI.
14:42:37 [Norm]
Henry: There is the presumption of no-change, steps that don't have to change properties shouldn't.
14:43:23 [Norm]
Some discussion of the last paragraph about p:identity
14:43:45 [Norm]
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]
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_]
jfuller_ has joined #xproc
14:44:49 [Norm]
Alex: In the context of a single expression, the document should be stable.
14:45:11 [Norm]
...Just in one with-option expression.
14:45:19 [ht]
q+ to challenge Norm's statement about document-uri
14:45:20 [Norm]
..Whether or not fn:doc should work is a whole different question.
14:45:41 [Norm]
...If that's not clear, then we need to make that clear.
14:45:46 [Norm]
ack ht
14:45:46 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to challenge Norm's statement about document-uri
14:46:10 [Norm]
Henry: I'm not immediately convinced that we need to say anything about document-uri
14:46:49 [Norm]
...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 [Norm]
...So it's not entirely clear to me that we have to say something about document-uri.
14:47:23 [ht]
"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 [Norm]
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 [ht]
So, yes, maybe we need an [implicit-]XDM-construction section
14:50:18 [Norm]
Norm: In, we're going to be XDM specific so we may have to deal with the document-uri question.
14:51:17 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
...It would be impossible to do the dependency tracking if you weren't careful.
14:52:21 [jfuller_]
gives up ... going to phone shop ...
14:52:58 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
...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 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
...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 [Norm]
Further discussion of caches and such
15:00:01 [Norm]
ACTION: A-228-03 Norm to ask the commenter about the last paragraph of bug 20995
15:00:10 [Norm]
Further discussion of this bug will be necessary
15:00:15 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
15:00:18 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business
15:00:32 [Norm]
None heard.
15:00:38 [Vojtech]
Thanks :)
15:00:41 [Norm]
15:00:44 [Zakim]
15:00:48 [Zakim]
15:00:52 [Zakim]
15:00:54 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended
15:00:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were +420.7.282.7.aaaa, Alex_Milows, Norm, jfuller, ht
15:02:55 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:02:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:00:40 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc