See also: IRC log
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-agenda
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/09-minutes
Accepted.
Vojtech gives regrets.
Norm: Henry, we asked you to take a look.
Henry: Yes. After looking at it
for a while, I don't think it belongs in this spec.
... It's a one-clause statement. Instead of someone saying "the
input processing for my spec is the whatever profile", they say
"comes from a *validating* processor that conforms to the
whatever profile"
... That seems to be the right way to do it, and we already
have a statement about the fact that some properties, such as
element-content-whitespace depend on whether or not you have a
validating processor.
Norm: Because the only difference is ... element content whitespace?
Henry: Well, even if that wasn't
true, I don't think I'd want to make 2n profiles where we have
n today.
... It's the wrong place to multiply things.
... And element-content-whitespace is the only place where it
isn't completely orthogonal.
Alex: Validation is either on the input or the output, depending on where you're doing it.
Henry: Indeed. Another thing I failed to put in the email is that there are "n" schema languages out there and which one(s) you want to require is up to you.
Alex: I think it would behoove us to have a specific section to enumerate some of these things. It's a "How Should You Consider Validation" section.
Henry: I agree. I'll try to draft that.
<jimfuller> +1 to that, good idea
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to draft a new section for XML processor profiles that discusses how to consider validation. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Henry: Mention E-C-WS, mention before or after, mention alternative schema languages.
Norm attempts to reconstruct the XProc/Core xml:base discussion.
Alex: The question is, if you add or change an xml:base attribute in the DOM in a browser, what should happen to the base URI property.
Henry: There's nothing in the XProc spec that you're concerned about.
Henry: So the question is, given that HTML5 gives you a way of changing all kinds of stuff in the DOM, should we say something about what changing the xml:base attribute means.
Paul: In the past, we've always stayed away from the editing cases, and dealt with what it means to parse a document.
Henry: I think we want XML Core to ask HTML5 to make it explicit about what happens when you change xml:base.
Alex: In HTML5 the specific case
is that xml:base *does* effect the base URI of things like
images. Now if you go back and add an xml:base attribute, what
should happen?
... I think from a browser implementor perspective, the sane
thing to say is that the base URI changes but no URIs are
recomputed.
... It's not just HTML5 that has this problem.
Paul: So what I hear is that someone should point out that HTML5 should say what happens when you change xml:base.
Alex: I opened a bug, http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12924 on the issue.
Henry has to leave. Norm steps away.
<PGrosso> HT points out that it would make a stronger statement if a WG filed such a comment.
<PGrosso> Paul suggested the xproc WG could do that. ht thought it might make more sense for the xml core wg to do it.
<PGrosso> Paul could live with it either way as long as someone else (e.g., Alex, Henry, Norm) writes the comment.
Norm returns.
Norm argues we've done enough. Henry counters that it means more if it comes from a WG when reviewed by the Director.
Paul: I think it makes more sense to come from XProc.
<jimfuller> me too
Norm: Would you take the action to write the comment and send it to our list for review.
Alex: Sure.
<scribe> ACTION: Alex to draft a comment about xml:base processing for the XProc WG to send to HTML5 WG. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
Norm: I'm inclined to leave the
question about whether or not our spec says enough off until
Henry returns.
... Any objections?
None heard.
None heard.
Adjourned.