IRC log of xproc on 2013-08-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:59:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
13:59:37 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:59:41 [Norm]
zakim, this will be xproc
13:59:41 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
13:59:51 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
13:59:51 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
13:59:51 [Norm]
13:59:51 [Norm]
Date: 28 August 2013
13:59:51 [Norm]
Meeting: 236
13:59:51 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
13:59:51 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
13:59:52 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:00:10 [Norm]
14:00:18 [Norm]
zakim, passcode
14:00:18 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'passcode', Norm
14:00:19 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started
14:00:21 [Zakim]
14:00:21 [Norm]
zakim, passcode?
14:00:21 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, Norm
14:00:58 [Zakim]
14:00:59 [Zakim]
14:00:59 [Zakim]
14:01:28 [Zakim]
14:01:42 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
14:01:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ht, Norm, Alex_Milows
14:01:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, ht, Zakim, jf_2013, Norm
14:03:03 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
14:03:07 [Zakim]
14:03:12 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
14:03:29 [alexmilowski]
FYI: my house is loud this morning.
14:04:09 [Zakim]
14:04:19 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Henry, Alex, Jim, Vojtech
14:04:24 [Vojtech]
zakim, jeroen is me
14:04:24 [Zakim]
+Vojtech; got it
14:04:35 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
14:04:35 [Norm]
14:04:39 [Norm]
14:05:02 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
14:05:02 [Norm]
14:05:09 [Norm]
Jim points out a missing action.
14:05:26 [Norm]
ACTION A-236-01: Alex to prepare a note with the table of use cases and solutions from V1.
14:05:47 [Norm]
14:06:00 [Norm]
Topic: Review comments on XML processor profiles
14:06:55 [Norm]
Henry: On the question of validation, I see three possibilities.
14:07:19 [Norm]
...1, say validation is so last century it isn't worth addressing. No one cares anymore.
14:07:53 [jf_2013]
14:08:17 [Norm]
... 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 [jf_2013]
XML Proc Profiles -
14:09:46 [Norm]
... 3, give a normative paragraph that describes how to construct names for the validating versions.
14:10:01 [Norm]
... Not only will you say you could do it, we'll tell you how to do it.
14:11:06 [Norm]
... We could elaborate the last sentence of section 7 to say "we recommend the following language to be used..."
14:11:42 [Norm]
... I think I like 2 the least.
14:11:49 [Norm]
Norm: I agree, DTDs really are last century.
14:12:22 [Norm]
Jim: If there is validation, is the sequence implied?
14:12:32 [Norm]
Henry: The only case where there's any dependency is in profile 4.
14:14:28 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
14:16:24 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
Alex: Michael makes this point, he says there are eight or more, and that's why we're not doing it.
14:17:30 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
Alex: But these are the base specs.
14:18:12 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
Alex: I'm not even sure we have a consumer for this spec, do we really want to add more complexity?
14:20:53 [Norm]
Some discussion of whether or not anyone expects validation.
14:21:08 [Norm]
Alex: No other format talks about validation, it's one of the reasons it's bad. Use JSON.
14:21:24 [Norm]
Jim: Once you get to a significantly complex application, validation has to come into play.
14:21:44 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
Jim: Or we could add an optional step to each profile.
14:23:23 [Norm]
Henry: Edit 2.3 and 2.4 to put the hooks in for validation.
14:25:30 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
14:26:36 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
14:27:02 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
Discussion of the classification of facets
14:33:14 [Norm]
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]
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]
ht has joined #xproc
14:38:05 [Norm]
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]
jfuller_2013 has joined #xproc
14:42:38 [Norm]
ACTION A-236-05 Norm to review how the XDM spec talks about "information items
14:44:27 [Norm]
Some additional discussion in which Norm observes that the phrase only occurs five times.
14:44:35 [Norm]
Norm: So we could just reword those sentences in 2.x?
14:44:37 [Norm]
Henry: Yes, go ahead.
14:45:18 [Norm]
ACTION A-236-05 Norm to change the XPP spec to replace the phrase "corresponding to ..." with something more direct.
14:48:46 [Norm]
ACTION A-236-06 Henry to remove the seventeenth-century capitalization in the XPP spec.
14:51:15 [Norm]
ACTION A-236-07 Norm to provide a definition of the word "profile".
14:52:07 [Norm]
Henry: The XML spec makes the distinction between reading and processing, that's why we do.
14:52:28 [Norm]
ACTION A-236-08 Henry to respond to Michael about the distinction between reading and processing
14:53:56 [Norm]
Jim: Didn't we do what Michael requests in "relations to current practice?"
14:54:01 [Norm]
Henry: I thought so.
14:54:07 [Norm]
Jim: I think Alex took a wack at it.
14:54:59 [Norm]
Alex: I looked at what the webkit and firefox browsers do.
14:55:49 [jfuller_2013]
BRowsers and profiles (Alex) -
14:56:36 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
15:00:13 [Norm]
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]
ht has joined #xproc
15:00:49 [Zakim]
15:00:52 [Norm]
Jim: I think we don't have a backstop profile, one that doesn't do XML base
15:01:05 [Norm]
ok, ht, see you at the f2f!
15:01:41 [ht_home]
ht_home has joined #xproc
15:01:58 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business
15:03:20 [Norm]
No more telcons until after the face-to-face.
15:03:23 [Norm]
See you all at the f2f.
15:03:30 [Norm]
15:03:31 [Zakim]
15:03:32 [Zakim]
15:03:35 [Zakim]
15:03:38 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
15:03:44 [Norm]
zakim, draft minutes
15:03:44 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'draft minutes', Norm
15:03:48 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:03:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
15:03:52 [Zakim]
15:03:52 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended
15:03:52 [Zakim]
Attendees were ht, Norm, Alex_Milows, jf_2013, Vojtech