15:49:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:49:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-xproc-irc
15:54:59 <ruilopes> ruilopes has joined #xproc
15:55:53 <Norm> Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:55:53 <Norm> Date: 15 November 2007
15:55:53 <Norm> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/11/15-agenda
15:55:53 <Norm> Meeting: 92
15:55:53 <Norm> Chair: Norm
15:55:54 <Norm> Scribe: Norm
15:55:56 <Norm> ScribeNick: Norm
15:57:09 <Norm> Regrets: Paul, Mohamed
15:58:15 <avernet> avernet has joined #xproc
16:00:09 <Zakim> XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
16:00:16 <Zakim> +Norm
16:02:16 <ht> zakim, please call ht-781
16:02:16 <Zakim> ok, ht; the call is being made
16:02:17 <Zakim> -Norm
16:02:19 <Zakim> +Norm
16:02:20 <Zakim> +??P26
16:02:32 <avernet> zakim, ? is avernet
16:02:32 <Zakim> +avernet; got it
16:02:39 <Zakim> +??P21
16:02:55 <Norm> Zakim, ??P21 is richard
16:02:55 <Zakim> +richard; got it
16:03:00 <richard> richard has joined #xproc
16:03:02 <Norm> Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:03:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see Norm, avernet (muted), richard
16:03:11 <ht> zakim, please call ht-781
16:03:12 <Zakim> ok, ht; the call is being made
16:03:12 <Zakim> +Ht
16:03:24 <Norm> Zakim, unmute avernet 
16:03:24 <Zakim> avernet should no longer be muted
16:03:29 <Zakim> +??P28
16:03:35 <ruilopes> Zakim, ? is me
16:03:35 <Zakim> +ruilopes; got it
16:03:44 <Norm> Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:03:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see Norm, avernet, richard, Ht, ruilopes
16:04:20 <Norm> Zakim, who's talking?
16:04:32 <Zakim> Norm, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: richard (4%), avernet (56%)
16:05:12 <Zakim> -avernet
16:06:01 <Zakim> +??P20
16:06:05 <avernet> zakim, ? is avernet
16:06:05 <Zakim> +avernet; got it
16:06:12 <Andrew> Andrew has joined #xproc
16:06:23 <Zakim> +Murray_Maloney
16:06:41 <Norm> Present: Norm, Alessandro, Richard, Henry, Rui, Andrew, Murray
16:06:45 <Norm> Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:06:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see Norm, richard, Ht, ruilopes, avernet, Murray_Maloney
16:07:06 <Zakim> +??P0
16:07:07 <alexmilowski> alexmilowski has joined #xproc
16:07:11 <Andrew> zakim, ? is Andrew
16:07:11 <Zakim> +Andrew; got it
16:07:17 <alexmilowski> I'll be on in just a second...
16:07:18 <Norm> Present: Norm, Alessandro, Richard, Henry, Rui, Andrew, Murray, Alex
16:07:28 <Norm> Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:07:28 <Norm> -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/11/15-agenda
16:07:31 <Norm> Accepted
16:07:37 <Norm> Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
16:07:37 <Norm> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0031.html
16:07:47 <Norm> Accepted
16:07:56 <Norm> Topic: Next meeting: telcon 29 November 2007
16:08:22 <Norm> Alessandro gives regrets for 29 Nov
16:08:32 <Norm> (Note that we are not meeting on 22 Nov!)
16:08:48 <Norm> Topic: XPath versions
16:08:48 <Norm> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0038.html
16:09:13 <Zakim> + +1.415.404.aaaa
16:09:38 <Norm> Zakim, aaaa is alexmilowski 
16:09:38 <Zakim> +alexmilowski; got it
16:10:12 <Norm> Norm summarizes the state of play
16:10:43 <Norm> Henry: The traditional schema group compromise seems appropriate: call attention to it in the next draft of the spec and ask for implementor feedback.
16:11:48 <Norm> s/implementor/implementor and user/
16:11:56 <MoZ> MoZ has joined #xproc
16:12:11 <Norm> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0053.html
16:12:46 <Norm> Alex: So we're going to allow for different answers in the two versions.
16:12:55 <Norm> Norm: Yes, for now, with Henry's suggestion for priority feedback
16:14:08 <Norm> Henry: The 99.99% case is when you're comparing strings in XPath 1, one of the strings will coerce to a number. In that case, you will get the same answer.
16:14:23 <Norm> Murray: Why can't we settle on XPath 2.0
16:14:49 <Norm> Henry/Richard: Because right now there are too many implementation communities where 1.0 is only available.
16:15:22 <Norm> Murray: I think it'd be better to leave them behind than to possibly give different results.
16:15:46 <Norm> Henry: The proposal as it stands includes the idea that we give authors guidance for interoperability.
16:16:13 <Norm> ...It's extremely unlikely that the kinds of xpaths that don't interoperate will really turn up in practice.
16:16:28 <Norm> ...I'd rather include the XPath 1.0 people in at the expense of that very small problem than exclude them to get rid of it.
16:17:20 <Norm> Alex: Interoperability is more than just getting the same answer; there are also cases where the XPaths simply won't work on some implementations.
16:18:35 <Norm> Norm: I think saying XPath 2.0 only would be a tactical error.
16:18:42 <Norm> Murray: So can we say 1.0 only?
16:18:54 <Norm> Norm: There are implementors that only plan to support 2.0.
16:19:17 <Norm> Alex: I'm not sure that guiding authors to use some squishy middle ground is the right answer.
16:19:35 <Norm> ...I think it'd be better to explain the interoperability probems.
16:19:38 <Norm> s/probems/problems/
16:20:41 <Norm> Some discussion of the right interoperability story.
16:22:04 <Norm> Henry: I'd like to see the editor try to write up the point that we arrived at.
16:22:42 <Norm> Norm: Uh, I did that.
16:22:53 <Norm> Alex: Do we want to allow the xpath-version attribute on any element?
16:24:02 <Norm> Norm: I was thinking of cut-and-paste
16:24:18 <Norm> ...But I'm perfectly happy to try putting it only on p:pipeline-library and p:pipeline
16:26:19 <Norm> Some discussion of what the differences between 1.0 and 2.0 actually are
16:26:43 <Norm> Richard: Should we just make it a static error to attempt to use XPath 2.0 with an XPath 1.0-only processor?
16:27:13 <Norm> Henry: I'm happy with the silent attempt because it is amenable to conditional pipelines.
16:28:53 <Norm> Murray: Back in the days when we were first talking about SGML on the web, one of the expressions that came up was "perverse obscurity".
16:29:05 <Norm> ...This discussion of 1.0/2.0 corners is perverse obscurity.
16:30:05 <Norm> Murray: We're setting up a situation where it is possible for pipelines to generate the wrong answer.
16:30:13 <Norm> Henry: I think you're exhagerating the situation.
16:31:06 <Norm> Norm: I think the number of cases where you're going to give the wrong answer is quite small.
16:31:55 <Norm> Richard: Presumably users of XSLT 2.0 processors with XSLT 1.0 stylesheets are experiencing the same problems.
16:31:57 <Norm> Norm: yes.
16:32:11 <Norm> Henry: I've been doing this for years and I've never had a problem.
16:34:50 <Norm> Norm: We could make XPath 1.0 compatibility mode a MUST for implementors
16:35:31 <Norm> Richard: And we could say that XPath 1.0 implemntors MUST only run expressions that will give teh same result
16:36:56 <Norm> Norm: Bah, I don't think I want to go there.
16:37:14 <Norm> Henry: I sort of like this road; nobody loses, it's just that some people win more than others.
16:38:07 <Norm> Henry: I think the spec should say that if someone asks for XPath 2.0 evaluation, your XPath 1.0 implementation MUST only evaluate those XPaths which they know have the same value.
16:38:23 <Norm> Richard: And if yours doesn't know any, it must reject them all.
16:39:53 <Norm> Norm: So we're going basically the route I outlined, but saying that 2.0 processor must implement 1.0 mode and a 1.0 processor must not evaluate any expression that it cannot determine will give the same result in XPath 2.0.
16:40:06 <Norm> Richard: Can we find out what the subset is?
16:40:13 <Norm> Alex: Maybe. There's an appendix in XPath 2.0 spec.
16:40:28 <Norm> Proposed: Go forward as above for the next draft.
16:40:32 <Norm> Accepted.
16:40:46 <Norm> Topic: XSLT versions
16:40:46 <Norm> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0016.html
16:42:21 <Norm> Norm outlines his plan
16:42:23 <Norm> Alex: I'm all for it.
16:42:45 <Norm> Proposed: go this way for the next draft.
16:42:47 <Norm> Accepted.
16:42:51 <MoZ> Zakim, what is the code ?
16:42:51 <Zakim> the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
16:43:02 <Norm> Topic: New public working draft
16:43:31 <Zakim> +MoZ
16:43:32 <Norm> Norm: I think we need a new draft asap.
16:43:45 <Norm> Richard: We also need the stuff about what types are in scope.
16:44:19 <Norm> Norm: I'm happy to do the next draft with a fair number of "TBD" sectins.
16:44:24 <Norm> s/sectins/sections/
16:46:58 <Norm> Proposed: editor will make a new public draft with the XPath/XSLT decisions and as many other decisions as possible to be published as soon as practical.
16:47:53 <Norm> Accepted.
16:48:22 <Norm> Topic: Other last call comments (implicit inputs/outputs; default bindings)
16:48:30 <Norm> Topic: New step types (p:hash, p:uuid, p:www-form-url(en|de)code
16:48:57 <Norm> Norm: Anyone object to putting those in the next draft?
16:49:10 <Norm> Mohamed, do we have strong use cases for them
16:49:34 <Norm> Norm: Yes, and they're optional anyway
16:49:52 <Norm> Accepted.
16:50:03 <Norm> Topic: Other last call comments (implicit inputs/outputs; default bindings)
16:50:51 <Norm> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0032.html
16:50:54 <Norm> Norm summarizes
16:52:19 <Norm> s/summarizes/summarizes the state of default bindings
16:53:33 <Norm> Accepted.
16:55:23 <Norm> Norm attempts to summarize the default input/output case.
16:57:07 <Norm> See 2.3 in the 13 Nov editor's draft.
16:57:24 <Norm> Accepted.
16:57:51 <Norm> ACTION: Norm to change all the examples
16:58:15 <Norm> Topic: Any other business
16:59:17 <Norm> Henry: It occurs to me that wrt the visible step types, it's not completely clear whether we have schema rules or xslt rules. If I import something that imports something else, do I get to use what's in the third thing or not.
16:59:32 <Norm> ...Richard and my prose supposes that the answer is yes. The current draft suggests that it's no.
16:59:56 <Norm> ...And the message about circular imports clearly suggests that it's no.
17:00:09 <Norm> Richard: I believe that Henry's message is right, modulo that fix.
17:00:28 <Norm> Henry: I'd like to particularly encourage Alex to review it.
17:00:34 <Norm> Alex: Right. Will do.
17:01:01 <Norm> Adjourned
17:01:03 <Zakim> -alexmilowski
17:01:04 <Zakim> -ruilopes
17:01:05 <Zakim> -Norm
17:01:06 <Zakim> -avernet
17:01:07 <Zakim> -Ht
17:01:09 <Zakim> -Andrew
17:01:10 <Zakim> -richard
17:01:12 <Zakim> -MoZ
17:01:14 <Zakim> -Murray_Maloney
17:01:15 <Zakim> XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
17:01:16 <Zakim> Attendees were Norm, avernet, richard, Ht, ruilopes, Murray_Maloney, Andrew, +1.415.404.aaaa, alexmilowski, MoZ
17:01:20 <Norm> RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
17:01:23 <Norm> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:01:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-xproc-minutes.html Norm
18:25:40 <Norm> Zakim, bye
18:25:40 <Zakim> Zakim has left #xproc
18:25:41 <Norm> RRSAgent, bye
18:25:41 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-xproc-actions.rdf :
18:25:41 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Norm to change all the examples [1]
18:25:41 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-xproc-irc#T16-57-51