14:59:43 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:59:43 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-xproc-irc 14:59:48 Zakim, this will be XProc 14:59:48 ok, ht; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute 14:59:59 avernet has joined #xproc 15:00:03 Meeting: XProc telcon 15:00:12 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/11/01-agenda 15:00:18 Chair: Henry S. Thompson 15:00:24 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 15:00:31 ScribeNick: ht 15:00:53 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 15:01:01 +[IPcaller] 15:01:38 -[IPcaller] 15:01:39 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 15:01:40 Attendees were [IPcaller] 15:02:13 zakim, please call ht-781 15:02:13 ok, ht; the call is being made 15:02:14 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 15:02:16 +Ht 15:03:22 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 15:03:32 On in just a second ... 15:04:20 Andrew has joined #xproc 15:04:33 And joining in 2 seconds here... (sorry) 15:04:37 Andrew, we have regrets from Paul, right? 15:05:22 Nevermind, I've confirmed 15:05:25 +??P13 15:05:30 zakim, ? is avernet 15:05:30 +avernet; got it 15:05:43 richard has joined #xproc 15:05:57 +??P14 15:06:00 zakim, ? is Andrew 15:06:00 +Andrew; got it 15:06:09 +??P18 15:06:09 zakim, ? is me 15:06:10 +richard; got it 15:07:18 come on Alex, we're waiting for you. . . 15:07:52 Topic: Agenda 15:07:57 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/11/01-agenda 15:08:21 Accepted as distributed 15:08:31 Topic: Minutes of last meeting 15:08:39 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/25-minutes.html 15:08:58 Accepted as distributed 15:09:20 Topic: Next meetings 15:09:48 +Alex_Milowski 15:10:38 F2F in Cambridge MA next Thur and Friday: Norm, Henry, Paul, Alex 15:11:00 HST: We will try to announce some summary of discussion and decision making times, for those who are dialing in 15:11:19 MSM has joined #xproc 15:11:26 Next telcon: 15 November, usual timing 15:11:44 No known regrets at this time. . . 15:11:57 zakim, please call MSM-Office 15:11:57 ok, MSM; the call is being made 15:11:59 +MSM 15:12:03 Topic: Review of Action Items 15:12:18 regrets from me for 15 November 15:12:35 s/, Alex/, Alex, Michael (in part)/ 15:13:16 OK 15:13:24 Screaming child prevents me from unmuting... 15:13:44 No changes to published list 15:14:03 Topic: Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output 15:14:56 RT: At the end of the last meeting I was leaning towards requiring declarations for p:pipeline 15:15:07 ... They are short, don't require any bindings 15:15:51 ... I think we all rejected the extreme interpretation of the _status quo_ which would require arbitrary recursive analysis 15:16:28 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#C029 15:21:27 HST: [summarizes the 'use syntax' option] 15:22:16 HST: In the absence of email preparation, let's move on 15:22:29 AV: Please do send an example, but yes, let's move on 15:22:52 ACTION: HST to send an example of a 'new syntax' resolution to issue 29 to the list 15:23:20 Topic: Comment 18: Scope of step types 15:23:40 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#C018 15:24:04 RT: Don't we have approximate consensus on this, action A-87-03 refers 15:24:44 Topic: Comment 13: Saxonica comments on sections 5-7 15:24:53 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#C013 15:27:25 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#opt-param-bindings 15:28:04 HST: First, let's look at comment 3, section 5.7.3 option 2 15:29:25 RT: I think MK has misunderstood it 15:30:03 ... The prefixes whose bindings are in question are those in the _result_ of a 'select' XPath, not in the 'select' XPath itself 15:30:35 HST: The problem arises because there is no example to hand 15:31:19 AM: I think we have to clarify with an example and with better text, what the purpose of 'default namespace bindings' actually _is_ at this point 15:32:10 RT: There is an example further down 15:32:18 HST: We need a simpler example earlier 15:33:12 RT: Aha, we should be looking at the _first_ numbered list -- OK, yes, I see the problem 15:33:43 HST: Enough here to guide the editor, let's leave it with him 15:35:24 ACTION: NW to rewrite 5.7.3 by adding a simple 'select=' example alongside the 'match=' one at the beginning, and trying to clarify what the default namespace binding is for early on 15:36:02 HST: Moving on to comment 4, a clarification 15:36:18 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#p.document 15:36:57 AM: p:load is a step, p:document is not 15:37:47 ... p:document leaves it implementation-defined whether we validate or not 15:37:57 HST: No, it says you must not validate 15:38:56 AM: I'm surprised that is there. . . 15:39:30 RT: What does it mean to say 'must not validate' ? 'Must not fail for validity errors' I could understand 15:39:55 HST: I think we're looking at the result of Norm trying to respond to MK's comment here. . . 15:41:30 RT: I think this needs to change to clarify that p:document doesn't _fail_ because of a validity error 15:41:48 ... I think we should follow XSLT here and require that the external subset be read 15:41:59 ... so that all entities are expanded 15:42:25 HST: Do we need to be more explicit about any other processor-dependent options? 15:43:01 AM: I would be sorry to disallow the possibility of a secure environment in which all input of any kind to a pipeline had to be valid 15:43:11 RT: I guess we need to discuss this at the f2f 15:43:33 ... I think AM's point should be an 'at user option' feature. . . 15:43:47 HST: OK, done until the f2f 15:44:35 ... I think wrt MK's second point, NW's change in the 3 Oct. draft is sufficient 15:45:44 HST: Moving on to comment 6 15:46:16 HST: This is subsumed by issue http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#C070 15:46:56 ... Issue 18 Comment 6 and Issue 70 should be responded to jointly 15:47:18 RT: The idea is to do things much more cheaply than would be the case if XSLT or XQuery were used 15:48:12 HST: Yes, determines whether you get an efficient implementation without waiting for an XSLT implementation which detects streamability 15:48:54 RT: I've suggested in the past that we use XSLT stylesheets to provide exemplary implementations of the steps like these 15:49:02 ... removing any ambiguity as to how they work 15:49:12 HST: Interesting idea -- volunteers? 15:49:15 Richard suggested it... 15:49:16 :) 15:49:52 RT: There may be problems in the details 15:50:27 HST: We'll leave that for now, as a start on subsequent discussion or issue 70 15:51:29 s/Issue 18 Comment 6/Issue 13 Comment 6/ 15:51:46 RT: Let's not get bogged down in details of individual steps 15:52:04 HST: Moving on to comment 9 15:52:18 RT: What is meant by 'namespace aware DTD validation'? 15:52:27 ... assume it means namespace-aware parsing 15:54:34 HST: I think this means, by contrast with the reference to Namespace Well-formed for p:document, this means that if validate='true', then we require Namespace Validity 15:54:46 RT: Right, e.g. IDs must be NCNames 15:55:30 ACTION: NW to clarify by adding reference to Namespace Validity to the description of p:load with validate='true' 15:57:12 -richard 15:57:14 -Andrew 15:57:16 -Alex_Milowski 15:57:18 -Ht 15:57:19 -avernet 15:57:26 -MSM 15:57:28 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 15:57:29 Attendees were Ht, avernet, Andrew, richard, Alex_Milowski, MSM 15:57:43 zakim, bye 15:57:43 Zakim has left #xproc 15:57:51 rrsagent, make logs world-visible 15:57:59 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:57:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-xproc-minutes.html ht