14:52:46 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:52:46 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-xproc-irc 14:52:48 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 14:52:50 Date: 19 July 2007 14:52:52 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/07/19-agenda 14:52:54 Meeting number: 76, T-minus 15 weeks 14:52:58 Chair: Norm 14:53:00 Scribe: Norm 14:53:02 ScribeNick: Norm 14:55:39 PGrosso has joined #xproc 14:56:22 avernet has joined #xproc 14:56:37 Regrets: Richard, Henry, Rui 14:57:15 un-regret for me, norm :) 14:57:15 Zakim, what is the code ? 14:57:15 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ 15:00:27 Regrets: Richard, Henry 15:00:58 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 15:01:04 +Norm 15:01:04 +[ArborText] 15:01:25 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 15:02:00 +[IPcaller] 15:02:05 Zakim, [ip is me 15:02:08 +Alessandro_Vernet 15:02:12 +Alex_Milowski 15:02:15 +ruilopes; got it 15:03:37 +??P18 15:03:58 zakim, ??P18 is andrew 15:03:58 +andrew; got it 15:04:01 AndrewF has joined #xproc 15:04:06 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:04:06 On the phone I see PGrosso, Norm, ruilopes, Alessandro_Vernet, Alex_Milowski, andrew 15:04:10 zakim, andrew is AndrewF 15:04:10 +AndrewF; got it 15:04:17 +MoZ 15:04:37 Present: Paul, Norm, Rui, Alessandro, Alex, Andrew, Mohamed 15:04:40 zakim, please call MSM-Office 15:04:40 ok, MSM; the call is being made 15:04:41 +MSM 15:04:44 Topic: Accept this agenda? 15:04:44 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/07/19-agenda 15:04:52 Accepted. 15:04:56 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 15:04:56 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/07/12-minutes 15:05:03 Accepted. 15:05:13 Topic: Next meeting: telcon 26 July 2007 15:05:41 Norm, Rui (for two weeks) give regrets, Paul to chair 15:06:07 s/two/three/ 15:06:08 :-) 15:06:28 Topic: Review of 17 July 2007 draft. 15:06:28 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html 15:07:06 No comments 15:07:16 Topic: "Minimum" set of serialization options 15:07:16 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0166.html 15:07:38 Alex: There's not a lot of flexibility in the serialization spec. 15:07:46 ...The spec is very clear about what you can/can't do in each method 15:08:49 ...I plan to create a section to outline the serialization options. 15:09:15 ...I'll also clarify the semantics of the options 15:10:03 Norm: We still have some flexibility; we can specify default values and not require any other values to be supported. 15:12:47 Alex: Even if we enumerate the defaults; the problem is that if we have these options users may use them 15:13:05 Norm: I'm suggesting that we just don't require that all the options be supported. 15:13:47 [Sanity check - Norm is talking about a floor, not a ceiling, right?] 15:13:54 Uh. Yeah. 15:15:01 Norm gives up; will wait for concrete text to comment on 15:17:13 Michael: I'd paraphrase by saying that we don't need to require anything that serialization doesn't require us to require. I think it would be useful to have a list of the things that host languages are required to require. I think that's App D of the Serialization spec. 15:17:30 ...We don't need to require implementations to support some of those if they're tedious. 15:18:15 Alex: Appendix D is a checklist of impl. defined features. I thought Norm was more concerned about the minumum bar for features. 15:18:21 s/minumum/minimum/ 15:19:16 Michael: The set of features is partitioned into things that impl. are required to support, ones that a language could support, and features which the serialization spec leaves implementation-dependent. 15:19:17 "The values NFC and none MUST be supported by the serializer." 15:20:30 Section 10 says of host languages: "Specifications that set conformance criteria for their use of Serialization MUST NOT change the semantic definitions of Serialization as given in this specification, except by subsetting and/or compatible extensions. It is the responsibility of the host language to specify how serialization errors should be handled." 15:21:50 Topic: p:map proposal. 15:21:50 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0010.html 15:22:53 Mohamed: It has had a lot of names, map, catalog, etc. The need was identified a long time ago, especially for xinclude-with-sequence. The proposal was to make a tool which can help defining a mapping between documents available and URIs. 15:23:26 ...Maybe it's a bit too much for V1. Maybe we need to get more experience. A lighter version might be useful for defining mappings for XInclude. 15:23:49 ...For V1 in XSLT, we don't have access to the document created by result-document extensions. 15:23:57 s/XSLT/XSLT 1.0/ 15:24:19 ...It seems like there are a lot of use cases where there would be value in being able to provide hints to the pipeline. 15:24:44 ...The other point was, even if we don't care about p:map or something, are we going to say something about how consistent resolution of names is within a pipeline. 15:25:12 ...I think we need to open this box and try to draft something. 15:25:43 Norm: I thought years ago that we were going define a "pool" from which steps would get their URIs. 15:25:58 ...It became clear that we wouldn't get consensus on that. 15:26:13 Alex: I'm sympathetic, I just don't think we can do that in V1. 15:26:31 ...I can solve this by orchastrating a couple of pipelines. 15:26:40 ...We'll learn if we really need a language construct for this. 15:28:01 Norm: I think there's risk of pain to users, but a lot of benefit in waiting for V2 15:28:17 Mohamed: So what's the proposed answer? Just implementation-defined. 15:28:52 Norm: Yes, implementation-defined, with maybe a note about the value of the ability to get access to URIs. 15:30:07 Some discussion of how this interacts with the proposed base-uri and make-absolute steps. 15:32:01 Mohamed: I'm still unsure, but maybe we should just move on. 15:33:53 Alex: It gives people the flexibility to use proxies, caches, etc. 15:34:26 Mohamed: I just want to be sure that every place we have URI, we can use a condition to know which implementation we're running. 15:34:41 [it's important to give people some flexibility - but it's also important to give users of the term "conforming processor" a useful term defining a useful class of processor -- the utility of the phrase "conforming processor" is really the only thing any spec has to sell] 15:36:21 Norm: I don't hear consensus to add a step or language feature in V1. 15:36:32 Mohamed: I agree. I just want the spec to be clear about resolution. 15:37:07 q+ to ask about extension 15:37:14 ack msm 15:37:14 MSM, you wanted to ask about extension 15:37:47 Michael: Does the the flexibility that we're talking about extend to allowing extension mechanisms to provide the functions Mohamed is talking about? 15:38:02 Norm: Yes. The constraints on extension are fairly limited. 15:38:49 ACTION: Norm to clarify resolution of URIs in the spec 15:39:24 Mohamed: I just want to be sure, I felt that XProc was trying to resolve this part of XSLT problem, to make it possible to embed it and orchestrate it better. 15:41:29 Norm: I think we've improved things, we can chain arbitrary steps together; we just haven't tried to come between URI resolution and the bits you get back. I'm not sure we *can* go there. 15:41:48 Topic: p:make-uris-absolute proposal 15:41:48 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0156.html 15:42:38 Norm: It's hard to do this any other way; I'm in favor. 15:42:56 Alex: I'm in favor too 15:43:00 ...Required or optional? 15:43:12 Norm: I'm inclined to make steps required unless they're an enormous burden to implement. 15:43:20 Proposal: Required step V1. 15:43:25 Accepted. 15:43:35 Topic: p:add-xml-base-attributes proposal 15:43:35 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0155.html 15:44:08 Proposal: Required step V1. 15:44:14 Accepted. 15:44:19 Topic: Grouping in p:wrap-sequence 15:44:19 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0152.html 15:45:22 Norm attempts to ask his question 15:45:51 Norm: I think all we need to do is make the output a sequence and clarify the adjacent stuff. 15:45:59 Accepted. 15:46:21 Topic: Making href optional on p:log proposal 15:46:21 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0149.html 15:47:04 Alessandro: My understanding is that p:log is intended for debugging; in general, when I look at other similar constructs, you don't have to specify where the data is going to go. 15:47:29 ...Usually where the data goes is configured externally. I'd like to be able to do that in XProc. 15:47:40 Norm: Yeah, I can see that. 15:48:11 Mohamed: Since we say that there's only one p:log for each port, I think it makes sense. 15:48:21 Accepted 15:48:34 s/only one/only at most one/ 15:48:43 Topic: Questions about defaulting and syntactic shortcuts 15:48:44 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0153.html 15:50:03 Norm: I don't really want to do these things, but like I said in the message, I don't have grounds to turn them down. 15:50:34 Alex: I'd like AVTs. 15:52:19 Norm: One of my input shortcuts clearly doesn't work, I don't think we should do any of them. 15:52:25 Alex: I don't think so either. 15:52:31 No changes. 15:52:38 Topic: Questions about xsl:message from XSLT 15:52:38 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0139.html 15:53:31 Norm: I think XSLT messages are a secondary output that you only get a hold of if there's an error. 15:53:38 Alex: I think you're right. 15:54:20 No changes. 15:54:26 Topic: Issues between here and Last Call: 15:55:44 Norm: I think base URI handling is handled by the steps we added today. 15:55:52 Alex: If a document comes out of a step, what's its base URI/ 15:56:15 Norm: I think each step needs to say how it produces the base URIs of the documents it produces. 15:56:55 Mohamed: Do we need a p:base-uri() function? 15:56:57 Norm: I don't know. 15:58:57 Norm: Does anyone else know of something that stands between here and Last Call. 15:59:12 Alex: Do we have to review our use cases and make sure we've hit them? 15:59:18 Norm: Have to, I don't know, should we, yes? 15:59:38 Mohamed: I'll give it a try. 16:00:40 Topic: Any other business? 16:01:57 -Alessandro_Vernet 16:01:58 -Norm 16:01:59 -PGrosso 16:02:00 -AndrewF 16:02:01 -ruilopes 16:02:03 -Alex_Milowski 16:02:04 -MoZ 16:02:09 -MSM 16:02:10 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 16:02:11 Attendees were Norm, PGrosso, [IPcaller], Alessandro_Vernet, Alex_Milowski, ruilopes, AndrewF, MoZ, MSM 16:02:19 So for the agenda next week, I think it'll consist of reviewing the draft that Alex and I produce and, if no one raises any issues, voting to take it to Last Call. 16:02:22 Adjourned 16:02:27 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:02:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-xproc-minutes.html Norm 16:02:32 rrsagent, set logs world visibile 16:02:32 I'm logging. I don't understand 'set logs world visibile', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:02:38 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 16:02:43 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:02:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-xproc-minutes.html Norm 16:03:16 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 16:03:31 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:03:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-xproc-minutes.html Norm 16:07:38 PGrosso has left #xproc 16:11:45 Norm, are you joining on xsl ? 16:13:29 Oh, rats. Yes. One sec. 16:14:16 I'm going to tell her you said that. 17:18:28 avernet has joined #xproc 18:03:48 Zakim has left #xproc 18:12:02 rrsagent, bye 18:12:02 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-xproc-actions.rdf : 18:12:02 ACTION: Norm to clarify resolution of URIs in the spec [1] 18:12:02 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-xproc-irc#T15-38-49