13:56:12 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 13:56:12 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/04/24-xproc-irc 13:56:14 Zakim has joined #xproc 13:56:20 zakim, this will be xproc 13:56:20 ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes 13:58:02 ht has joined #xproc 13:58:47 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 13:58:47 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 13:58:47 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-agenda 13:58:47 Date: 24 Apr 2013 13:58:47 Meeting: 230 13:58:47 Chair: Norm 13:58:47 Scribe: Norm 13:58:48 ScribeNick: Norm 13:59:03 XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started 13:59:10 +??P15 14:00:33 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 14:00:38 +[IPcaller] 14:00:55 zakim, passcode? 14:00:55 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Norm 14:01:15 +Norm 14:01:34 zakim, +[IPcaller is jf_2013 14:01:34 sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller' 14:01:41 zakim, IPcaller is jf_2013 14:01:41 +jf_2013; got it 14:01:52 +Alex_Milows 14:05:53 big data is often semi structured so it's XML even if it's not encoded that way 14:06:04 Yeah, the LD stuff too 14:07:04 Absolutely, just the geekerati don't (often) realise that/see it that way :-( 14:07:14 yeah. :-( 14:08:35 zakim, who's here? 14:08:35 On the phone I see ht, jf_2013, Norm, Alex_Milows 14:08:36 On IRC I see alexmilowski, ht, Zakim, RRSAgent, Norm, jf_2013, liam 14:08:44 Present: Norm, Henry, Jim, Alex 14:08:53 Topic: Accept this agenda? 14:08:53 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-agenda 14:08:58 Accepted. 14:09:02 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 14:09:02 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/03/20-minutes 14:09:11 Accepted. 14:09:16 Topic: Next meeting: 1 May 2013 14:09:39 Henry gives regrets for 1 May. 14:09:51 Topic: Review of open action items 14:10:42 Henry's items are on the agenda; no other progress reported. 14:10:58 Topic: Proposed changes to schemas/libraries 14:11:14 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2013Mar/0028.html 14:12:12 Henry: It's a long message, but basically, I propose to adopt the defacto model for non-REC but REC-related resources. 14:12:56 ...Follow the approach of the RECs themselves, but a little less formally. There's a URI that will be point to a mutable resource and another, dated, URI, that will never change. 14:13:41 ...We should update the spec to point to both the dated and undated URIs. 14:14:51 Norm: Attempting to recall why we don't point to the pipeline library. At one time, you could import it if you wanted to; we had some weird rules about what to do with steps that werent' recognized, etc. 14:15:34 ...We changed the rules at some point so that you can't import it and when we did that we removed the link; but I think we should put it back. 14:15:40 ...It's still used in the construction of the spec itself. 14:15:42 (fyi - home page updated http://www.w3.org/XML/Processing/) 14:15:52 (ty, Jim) 14:15:59 Jim: I think we should put the link back. 14:16:42 Norm: I think we should do what Henry suggests. 14:17:33 Norm: I think Henry can make the dated and undated URIs and I can propose the spec errata. 14:17:37 Henry: Yes, I think that makes sense. 14:17:42 Norm: Any objections to this course of action? 14:17:55 Accepted. 14:18:05 A-215-02: Closed 14:18:12 A-215-04: Closed 14:18:40 ACTION A-230-01: Henry to create dated and undated versions of the schemas and pipeline library in appropriate locations 14:19:01 ACTION A-230-02: Norm to propose errata along the lines described in msg 2013Mar/0028 14:19:38 someone's phone connection emitting white noise ;( 14:20:02 zakim, mute me 14:20:02 Norm should now be muted 14:20:06 zakim, unmute me 14:20:06 Norm should no longer be muted 14:20:08 thats better 14:20:21 Topic: Use cases and requirements? 14:20:42 Jim: No progress. I'm trying to get zip/unzip done. 14:20:51 Topic: Zip and unzip steps? 14:21:00 Jim: No progress there either. 14:21:17 Topic: Bug 21003, errors in 4.4.1, p:xpath-context 14:21:24 -> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21003 14:22:42 Norm: If the p:xpath-context is omitted, then the default readable port is used, I believe. If it doesn't say that, we should make an erratum to do so. 14:24:57 Henry: Yes, but what about Vojtech's comment? 14:25:26 Norm: I think what I said still applies; the default readable port is used if there's no p:xpath-context and it's explicitly not an error if there's no default readable port. The context is simply undefined. 14:25:35 Agreed 14:25:37 ...(with the standard XPath 1.0 hand wave at what undefined means) 14:25:57 ACTION: A-203-03: Norm to propose the erratum to resolve bug 21003 14:26:23 Topic: Bug 21004, errors in 5.7.1, p:variable 14:26:31 -> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21004 14:27:13 Jim: This appears to just be an editorial error. 14:27:23 Norm: I bet it's a cut-and-paste error by the editor. 14:27:48 Norm: I think the solution is simply to remove the apparently conditionality of the select expression. 14:28:14 s/If a select expression is given, it is/The select expression is/ 14:28:22 haha 14:28:28 Something like: s/If a select expression is given, it is/The select expression is/ 14:28:46 ACTION A-230-04: Norm to propose the erratum to resolve bug 21004 14:29:02 Topic: Bug 21005, specification error wrt in-scope bindings 14:29:07 -> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21005 14:34:52 Henry: It happens in 2.6.1.1. 14:35:19 ...The note in 'variable bindings' should be amended to be more precise. There's no straightforward referent for the phrase 'that variable' in the note. 14:35:43 ACTION: A-203-04: Henry to propose an erratum that fixes the phrase 'that variable' in the note in 'variable bindings' in 2.6.1..1 14:35:47 s/1..1/1.1/ 14:37:32 "An option that has neither a specified value nor a default value will not appear as an in-scope variable. Consequently, an attempt to refer to that variable will raise an error." should change to "An option that has neither a specified value nor a default value will not appear as an in-scope XPath variable. Consequently, an attempt to refer to an XPath variable whose name is the name of such 14:37:32 an option will raise an error. 14:37:54 Norm: Looks good to me. 14:38:15 ACTION: A-203-05: Norm to put Henry's erratum text in the errata document 14:38:58 Henry: There's still a a problem because I don't think 'in-scope specified options' is well defined. 14:40:00 Henry: No, I take that back. I think we can just use the phrase 'specified options' in clause 5 or perhaps in a new clause 6. Yes, a new clause 6 probably. 14:41:22 Norm: What happens if you say p:namespaces binding=fred and fred is an optional option with no value; is that just a gaping whole in the spec? 14:41:27 Henry: Seems likely. 14:41:43 Henry: But I think the proposed cure is way more expense than is necessary. 14:42:10 ...I think it's true if it's a static error if the namespace binding isn't there, but it's also a dynamic error if something you thought was going to be there turns out not to be. 14:42:31 Norm: Yes, I agree that special casing that one issue seems better. 14:43:35 Henry: The reason it's not statically known is that you might have a declared step with a declared option with no default which is invoked in two different places in the pipeline and in one of those places the value is supplied and in the other it isn't. So without complete NP-complete flow analysis, you can't tell whether it's going to be called with or without the option. 14:44:19 Henry: You could imagine we make a rule that says that static analysis has to make the worst case assumption....but that seems unreasonable. 14:45:19 Norm: I'd like to do an experiment or two. 14:45:37 ACTION: Norm to setup a test case for the optional option/p:namespaces binding and see what implementations do. 14:45:56 +1 14:46:05 Norm: We'll see what happens in the wild and then come back to this one. 14:46:12 henry - your fone ... reminds me of the film Eraserhead 14:46:19 Topic: Bug 21006, errors in 4.4, p:choose 14:46:27 -> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21006 14:49:07 Jim: Why aren't p:when and p:otherwise steps? 14:49:19 Norm: Uhhh...because they don't inherit from their preceding siblings etc. 14:49:30 because they can't appear outside of p:choose 14:50:02 Right, "substitutions for the body" -- think of it that way