13:59:37 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 13:59:37 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/08/28-xproc-irc 13:59:41 zakim, this will be xproc 13:59:41 ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute 13:59:51 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 13:59:51 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 13:59:51 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-agenda 13:59:51 Date: 28 August 2013 13:59:51 Meeting: 236 13:59:51 Chair: Norm 13:59:51 Scribe: Norm 13:59:52 ScribeNick: Norm 14:00:10 s/no/not/ 14:00:18 zakim, passcode 14:00:18 I don't understand 'passcode', Norm 14:00:19 XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started 14:00:21 +??P0 14:00:21 zakim, passcode? 14:00:21 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Norm 14:00:58 +Norm 14:00:59 -Norm 14:00:59 +Norm 14:01:28 +Alex_Milows 14:01:42 zakim, who's here? 14:01:42 On the phone I see ht, Norm, Alex_Milows 14:01:44 On IRC I see RRSAgent, ht, Zakim, jf_2013, Norm 14:03:03 Vojtech has joined #xproc 14:03:07 +jf_2013 14:03:12 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 14:03:29 FYI: my house is loud this morning. 14:04:09 +Jeroen 14:04:19 Present: Norm, Henry, Alex, Jim, Vojtech 14:04:24 zakim, jeroen is me 14:04:24 +Vojtech; got it 14:04:35 Topic: Accept this agenda? 14:04:35 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/28-agenda 14:04:39 Accepted. 14:05:02 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 14:05:02 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-minutes 14:05:09 Jim points out a missing action. 14:05:26 ACTION A-236-01: Alex to prepare a note with the table of use cases and solutions from V1. 14:05:47 Accepted. 14:06:00 Topic: Review comments on XML processor profiles 14:06:55 Henry: On the question of validation, I see three possibilities. 14:07:19 ...1, say validation is so last century it isn't worth addressing. No one cares anymore. 14:07:53 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2013Aug/0001.html 14:08:17 ... 2, oh, all right, DTDs were a key part of XML, some of us still like them, so we'll add a fifth profile, the same as three or four with validation 14:08:51 XML Proc Profiles - http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-proc-profiles/ 14:09:46 ... 3, give a normative paragraph that describes how to construct names for the validating versions. 14:10:01 ... Not only will you say you could do it, we'll tell you how to do it. 14:11:06 ... We could elaborate the last sentence of section 7 to say "we recommend the following language to be used..." 14:11:42 ... I think I like 2 the least. 14:11:49 Norm: I agree, DTDs really are last century. 14:12:22 Jim: If there is validation, is the sequence implied? 14:12:32 Henry: The only case where there's any dependency is in profile 4. 14:14:28 ht has joined #xproc 14:16:24 Some discussion of the order in which validation can occur. In particular DTD validation during parsing and other kinds after construction of the initial infoset. 14:16:55 Alex: Michael makes this point, he says there are eight or more, and that's why we're not doing it. 14:17:30 Henry: On the other hand, this is a classic case of "if there's a complicated thing to define", leaving it to everyone else to do is less than helpful. 14:17:39 Alex: But these are the base specs. 14:18:12 Henry: But this conversation makes it clear that the implication of section 7 that you can say "I want the full profile with DTD validation" and be done and that's not remotely true. 14:18:47 Alex: I'm not even sure we have a consumer for this spec, do we really want to add more complexity? 14:20:53 Some discussion of whether or not anyone expects validation. 14:21:08 Alex: No other format talks about validation, it's one of the reasons it's bad. Use JSON. 14:21:24 Jim: Once you get to a significantly complex application, validation has to come into play. 14:21:44 Alex: I don't disagree, but when people think about the first thing you do when parsing a document they aren't thinking about validation. 14:22:18 Henry: I think we're all agreed it's going to be a layer, the question is are we going to give terminology and structure to that layer in this document. 14:22:30 Jim: Or we could add an optional step to each profile. 14:23:23 Henry: Edit 2.3 and 2.4 to put the hooks in for validation. 14:25:30 ht has joined #xproc 14:26:36 Norm: I'm tempted to try to do the elaboration Henry suggests in section 7. It would be an improvement to the specification irrespective of whether or not it satisfies Micheal. 14:26:45 s/cheal/chael/ 14:27:02 ACTION A-236-02 Henry to draft a revision to section 7 that provide instructions on how to specify what you want with respect to validation. 14:31:02 Discussion of the classification of facets 14:33:14 ACTION A-236-03 Henry to draft a revision of paragraph 3 in section 1.1 (or thereabouts) that makes explicit the fact that there are other facets (API, memory model, etc.) that are not relevant to this specification. 14:35:34 Norm: With respect to standalone, I propose a new paragraph that says effectively, "standalone was a mistake, it doesn't work, we explicitly ignore it." 14:36:21 ht has joined #xproc 14:38:05 ACTION A-236-04 Norm to draft a new paragraph for 1.1 that makes our decision to ignore standalone explicit and provides a rationale for it (wrong default, often incorreclty used, largely useless) 14:39:57 jfuller_2013 has joined #xproc 14:42:38 ACTION A-236-05 Norm to review how the XDM spec talks about "information items 14:44:27 Some additional discussion in which Norm observes that the phrase only occurs five times. 14:44:35 Norm: So we could just reword those sentences in 2.x? 14:44:37 Henry: Yes, go ahead. 14:45:18 ACTION A-236-05 Norm to change the XPP spec to replace the phrase "corresponding to ..." with something more direct. 14:48:46 ACTION A-236-06 Henry to remove the seventeenth-century capitalization in the XPP spec. 14:51:15 ACTION A-236-07 Norm to provide a definition of the word "profile". 14:52:07 Henry: The XML spec makes the distinction between reading and processing, that's why we do. 14:52:28 ACTION A-236-08 Henry to respond to Michael about the distinction between reading and processing 14:53:56 Jim: Didn't we do what Michael requests in "relations to current practice?" 14:54:01 Henry: I thought so. 14:54:07 Jim: I think Alex took a wack at it. 14:54:59 Alex: I looked at what the webkit and firefox browsers do. 14:55:49 BRowsers and profiles (Alex) - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2011Apr/0014.html 14:56:36 ht has joined #xproc 15:00:13 Alex: Saying I have an XML parser and it doesn't do X isn't necessarily the right way to look at it, you can provide options, you can choose to get different profiles out of it. 15:00:37 ht has joined #xproc 15:00:49 -ht 15:00:52 Jim: I think we don't have a backstop profile, one that doesn't do XML base 15:01:05 ok, ht, see you at the f2f! 15:01:41 ht_home has joined #xproc 15:01:58 Vojtech: I think we should have a reasonable intersection with reality, it may be fine if there are parsers that don't fall into any of our profiles, as long as there are enough that do. 15:02:32 Alex: What a parser does in the context of an application is just too broad to make this kind of analysis useful. 15:02:37 Topic: Any other business 15:03:20 No more telcons until after the face-to-face. 15:03:23 See you all at the f2f. 15:03:30 Adjourned. 15:03:31 -Alex_Milows 15:03:32 -jf_2013 15:03:35 -Vojtech 15:03:38 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 15:03:44 zakim, draft minutes 15:03:44 I don't understand 'draft minutes', Norm 15:03:48 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:03:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/08/28-xproc-minutes.html Norm 15:03:52 -Norm 15:03:52 XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended 15:03:52 Attendees were ht, Norm, Alex_Milows, jf_2013, Vojtech