IRC log of xproc on 2013-04-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:56:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
13:56:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/04/24-xproc-irc
13:56:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #xproc
13:56:20 [Norm]
zakim, this will be xproc
13:56:20 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:58:02 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
13:58:47 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
13:58:47 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
13:58:47 [Norm]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-agenda
13:58:47 [Norm]
Date: 24 Apr 2013
13:58:47 [Norm]
Meeting: 230
13:58:47 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
13:58:47 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
13:58:48 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
13:59:03 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started
13:59:10 [Zakim]
+??P15
14:00:33 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
14:00:38 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:00:55 [Norm]
zakim, passcode?
14:00:55 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Norm
14:01:15 [Zakim]
+Norm
14:01:34 [Norm]
zakim, +[IPcaller is jf_2013
14:01:34 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller'
14:01:41 [Norm]
zakim, IPcaller is jf_2013
14:01:41 [Zakim]
+jf_2013; got it
14:01:52 [Zakim]
+Alex_Milows
14:05:53 [Norm]
big data is often semi structured so it's XML even if it's not encoded that way
14:06:04 [Norm]
Yeah, the LD stuff too
14:07:04 [ht]
Absolutely, just the geekerati don't (often) realise that/see it that way :-(
14:07:14 [Norm]
yeah. :-(
14:08:35 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
14:08:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ht, jf_2013, Norm, Alex_Milows
14:08:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alexmilowski, ht, Zakim, RRSAgent, Norm, jf_2013, liam
14:08:44 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Henry, Jim, Alex
14:08:53 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
14:08:53 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-agenda
14:08:58 [Norm]
Accepted.
14:09:02 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
14:09:02 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/03/20-minutes
14:09:11 [Norm]
Accepted.
14:09:16 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: 1 May 2013
14:09:39 [Norm]
Henry gives regrets for 1 May.
14:09:51 [Norm]
Topic: Review of open action items
14:10:42 [Norm]
Henry's items are on the agenda; no other progress reported.
14:10:58 [Norm]
Topic: Proposed changes to schemas/libraries
14:11:14 [ht]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2013Mar/0028.html
14:12:12 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
...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 [Norm]
...We should update the spec to point to both the dated and undated URIs.
14:14:51 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
...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 [Norm]
...It's still used in the construction of the spec itself.
14:15:42 [jf_2013]
(fyi - home page updated http://www.w3.org/XML/Processing/)
14:15:52 [Norm]
(ty, Jim)
14:15:59 [Norm]
Jim: I think we should put the link back.
14:16:42 [Norm]
Norm: I think we should do what Henry suggests.
14:17:33 [Norm]
Norm: I think Henry can make the dated and undated URIs and I can propose the spec errata.
14:17:37 [Norm]
Henry: Yes, I think that makes sense.
14:17:42 [Norm]
Norm: Any objections to this course of action?
14:17:55 [Norm]
Accepted.
14:18:05 [Norm]
A-215-02: Closed
14:18:12 [Norm]
A-215-04: Closed
14:18:40 [Norm]
ACTION A-230-01: Henry to create dated and undated versions of the schemas and pipeline library in appropriate locations
14:19:01 [Norm]
ACTION A-230-02: Norm to propose errata along the lines described in msg 2013Mar/0028
14:19:38 [jf_2013]
someone's phone connection emitting white noise ;(
14:20:02 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
14:20:02 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
14:20:06 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
14:20:06 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
14:20:08 [jf_2013]
thats better
14:20:21 [Norm]
Topic: Use cases and requirements?
14:20:42 [Norm]
Jim: No progress. I'm trying to get zip/unzip done.
14:20:51 [Norm]
Topic: Zip and unzip steps?
14:21:00 [Norm]
Jim: No progress there either.
14:21:17 [Norm]
Topic: Bug 21003, errors in 4.4.1, p:xpath-context
14:21:24 [Norm]
-> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21003
14:22:42 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
Henry: Yes, but what about Vojtech's comment?
14:25:26 [Norm]
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 [ht]
Agreed
14:25:37 [Norm]
...(with the standard XPath 1.0 hand wave at what undefined means)
14:25:57 [Norm]
ACTION: A-203-03: Norm to propose the erratum to resolve bug 21003
14:26:23 [Norm]
Topic: Bug 21004, errors in 5.7.1, p:variable
14:26:31 [Norm]
-> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21004
14:27:13 [Norm]
Jim: This appears to just be an editorial error.
14:27:23 [Norm]
Norm: I bet it's a cut-and-paste error by the editor.
14:27:48 [Norm]
Norm: I think the solution is simply to remove the apparently conditionality of the select expression.
14:28:14 [Norm]
s/If a select expression is given, it is/The select expression is/
14:28:22 [jf_2013]
haha
14:28:28 [Norm]
Something like: s/If a select expression is given, it is/The select expression is/
14:28:46 [Norm]
ACTION A-230-04: Norm to propose the erratum to resolve bug 21004
14:29:02 [Norm]
Topic: Bug 21005, specification error wrt in-scope bindings
14:29:07 [Norm]
-> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21005
14:34:52 [Norm]
Henry: It happens in 2.6.1.1.
14:35:19 [Norm]
...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 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
s/1..1/1.1/
14:37:32 [ht]
"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 [ht]
an option will raise an error.
14:37:54 [Norm]
Norm: Looks good to me.
14:38:15 [Norm]
ACTION: A-203-05: Norm to put Henry's erratum text in the errata document
14:38:58 [Norm]
Henry: There's still a a problem because I don't think 'in-scope specified options' is well defined.
14:40:00 [Norm]
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]
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 [Norm]
Henry: Seems likely.
14:41:43 [Norm]
Henry: But I think the proposed cure is way more expense than is necessary.
14:42:10 [Norm]
...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]
Norm: Yes, I agree that special casing that one issue seems better.
14:43:35 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
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]
Norm: I'd like to do an experiment or two.
14:45:37 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to setup a test case for the optional option/p:namespaces binding and see what implementations do.
14:45:56 [jf_2013]
+1
14:46:05 [Norm]
Norm: We'll see what happens in the wild and then come back to this one.
14:46:12 [jf_2013]
henry - your fone ... reminds me of the film Eraserhead
14:46:19 [Norm]
Topic: Bug 21006, errors in 4.4, p:choose
14:46:27 [Norm]
-> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21006
14:49:07 [Norm]
Jim: Why aren't p:when and p:otherwise steps?
14:49:19 [Norm]
Norm: Uhhh...because they don't inherit from their preceding siblings etc.
14:49:30 [ht]
because they can't appear outside of p:choose
14:50:02 [ht]
Right, "substitutions for the body" -- think of it that way