See also: IRC log
<sml> we're on the phone now\
<MSM> type /nick Pratul
<pratul> Sandy, r u planning to dial in?
<pratul> Agenda is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Mar/0083.html
<MSM> scribe: Zulah Eckert
<MSM> scribenick: zeckert
<Sandy> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-sml-irc
<MSM> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5541
<scribe> meeting: SML F2F
resolution: Marked as editorial
as per resolution on 3/27/08 call
... fixed as per comment #2 (see bug)
ginny: this is a bug from Henry and needs to be marked editorial, decided or the editors will not do the right thing
ginny: could have been an editorial bug, but nervous about making that decision herself (in last call)
kumar: wants to mark as editorial
pratul: any objections to marking this bug as editorial?
resolution: group agrees to mark bug as editorial
pratul: we had a discussion on the 3/27/08 call.
Sandy: still reviewing. Will put remarks in bug report.
resolution: group will hold off until we get feedback from Sandy
kumar: discussion was should we
call this interchange set or interchange model.
... Sandy says prefix matching can be viewed as a form of
dereferencing
MSM: When you talk about doing dereferencing during SML validation, you are allowed to do this but SML is silent about this - so there is no guarantee.
kumar: there was no disagreement about changing interchange set to interchange model. We could resolve that. And if we wanted new text inserted about alias redirection, we could open a new bug for that.
pratul: any objections to changing interchange set to interchange model and creating a new bug for the alias redirection text issue?
MSM: it is clear that these terms
denote the same thing (interchange model and interchange set).
They do seem to have a different connotation. So is the
difference in connotation useful or not?
... Tends to favor the word set which is more concrete than
model. Prefers interchange set.
ginny: sees interchange set as the representation of the model that is being interchanged
MSM: if one monitors packets, I can tell that these are XML documents. My ability to detect that they are modeling relies much more heavily on interpretation. His instinct is that set is more useful
ginny: if we want to talk about representation of the model being interchange, would use set. If we are talking about validation, then its a model.
MSM: we are exchanging a set of representations in order to exchange the abstraction that they represent. It can be useful to use the two terms which while they denote the same thing, but that are used in different contexts.
kumar: has a slight preference for set
MSM: can live with either has a slight preference for set
kumar: on the list, Kirk, Ginny, and Sandy preferred model
pratul: so we have two proposals, MSMs (above) and the proposal that we use model interchange only.
Kirk: abstains from the decision
Sandy: prefers interchange model. Does not see sufficient benefit for having two terms.
Jordan: agrees with Sandy
zeckert: prefers MSMs proposal however understands that the editors might not
pratul: resolution is to change it to model interchange
resolution: updating bug to editorial and the term will be model interchange
pratul: bug is "consider using another term for URI scheme"
<MSM> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-sml-irc
resolution: mark decided and
editorial
... use "SML URI reference scheme"
Why does SML define sml:ref instead of using XLink
kumar: studied XLink proposal and
we could define this using XLink, but not clear why we would do
this. SML is not in the business of defining schemes.
... one way is to say that all sml:refs are XLinks but we need
a way to distinguish the XLinks that aren't sml:refs because
not all are going to be and the ones that are have different
semantics
pratul: we have two separate issues from Henry's comment #5 - the XLink scheme and the XHTML ref scheme (seperate bug)
MSM: Thinks that there is a
conflating of (1) why use this syntax rather than that for
addressing - and - (2) why not use XLink:href as the way to
identify the set of interdocument references that are being
validated.
... the answer to (2) is that not all XLink:hrefs are
sml:refs.
... not sure which is being asked
... if you only use XLink as the addressing mechanism, fine but
you will still need to sml:ref attribute to mark references
kumar: agrees
pratul: any objection to this resolution?
resolution: move bug to decided, with comment "sml:ref is used to identify an SML reference and is orthogonal to the mechanism used to carry an address"
MSM: in this bug, thinks yet another issue is being raised which is (3) why can't I use this to validate HTML? Issue is that you want to validate pointers to non-XML documents.
pratul: which is currently in a separate bug
Why is document defined as a character sequence?
pratul: we had a long discussion of this on the last call
<MSM> Sandy: I think I agree with Henry, in an ideal world. Talking to an interface is better than talking to a data format.
MSM: (P1) document is equivalent to a character sequence. (P2) P1 fobids a DOM interface. Does not believe that this is true (P3) P2 is false. (P4) P1 leaves holes in the conformance story for a DOM interface.
<MSM> ... But for this particular bug report, I think I agree with MSM: changing it could make the spec awkward.
MSM: infoset is not an interface
<Sandy> it's a tradeoff, between an easier to read spec, vs. a (in some sense) more complete specification.
MSM: the infoset spec defines a set of terms. It is a glossary.
<Sandy> in reality, if our spec only covers character sequences, then most reasonable people will understand what should be expected for other representations of XML. so the benefit of having a "complete" spec may not have that big a benefit.
<Sandy> so on balance, with sympathy to Henry's suggestion, I think our spec stands a better chance to succeed without having "information items" all over the places.
<Sandy> i can live with proposals that somehow draw the connection to non-char-sequence representations, but will not insist on it.
MSM: proposes resolution. Seem to be converging on the view that we don't want to change our definition. Record our intent not to change the substance of the spec and instruct the editors to draft a note for review.
ginny: unsure whether note is an editorial note. That it is something that the editors create.
MSM: thinks kumar said "note" and he is echoing that. Believes that the text kumar was proposing was not intended to change the substance - non-normative note.
resolution: mark decided and
editorial. Editors will draft a note for group to review.
Decision is that the note will be non-normative.
... note should clarify the relationship between character
stream and non-character interface is as described in those
interfaces (SAX or DOM).
<pratul> The note should clarify the relation between the XML document (character stream) and the non-character representations (SAX or DOM)
MSM: prefers to leave infoset out of note
resolution: note to the editors to mark this as needsReview after note has been drafted.
MSM: suggests that we create note prior to getting Henry's feedback.
Why is NCName optional?
<MSM> On Friday's call, the log says:
<MSM> 19:48:28 [ginny]
<MSM> 19:49:09 [JA]
<MSM> I meant MSM's discussion around what is provable wrt a given impl
<MSM> 19:50:24 [ginny]
<MSM> Kumar: namespace is optional because the function must be from a given namespace; nothing else is allowed
<MSM> 19:53:46 [MSM]
<MSM> [For the record, Michael Kay's book on XSLT 1.0 says (p. 452) "extension functions provided by ... third parties should always be in a different namespace and will need to have a namespace prefix when called."]
<MSM> 19:54:19 [ginny]
<MSM> Pratul: dropping it completely might be cleaner approach if required namespace is ugly
<MSM> 19:54:35 [ginny]
<MSM> Kumar: keep it the way it is or, if causing problems, make it mandatory
MSM: are there people here who are fundamentally opposed to using the prefix?
pratul: all of our examples have
used prefixed names. Believes that this is also true for COSMOS
work.
... Believes that Henry would like us to make this
mandatory
MSM: can think of one technically
sound reason to make it optional (1) because we want to put it
into the anonymous name space (the same as with other built in
functions).
... however, in XSLT the prefix is required. Proposes this
resolution.
kumar: has mild preference for making it optional but mandatory is okay
pratul: any objections to proposed resolution?
resolution: mark bug as decided and editorial. We will make NCName mandatory.
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5543
SML URI seems overconstrained
"SMLURI" == SML URI Reference Scheme
pratul: proposal to allow the use of bare names as a special case. This doesn't create a significant implementation burden.
<johnarwe> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-xptr-framework-20030325/
bare name == shorthand pointer
<johnarwe> ex barename: #xyz
<johnarwe> equiv(?) smlpath1() content: #//*[@barId='xyz']
johnarwe: can be DTD, schema, or
user defined
... could have floor and ceiling solution. You have to support
smlxpath1() and you can choose to use barenames
kumar: thinks that this isn't deterministic
<johnarwe> gen equiv form: #smlxpath1( id(xyz) ) ... but assertion is that function call (id()) outside of predicate is disallowed by xpath's LocationPath production
<johnarwe> another generally equivalent form: #smlxpath1( //*[id(xyz)=.] )
<johnarwe> the id(xyz)=. portion is not precisely correct ... it's shorthand
<johnarwe> the id(xyz)=. portion is not precisely correct
<johnarwe> it's shorthand
<johnarwe> it is shorthand (zakim, you dopey bot)
<johnarwe> ...so we may not have escaped the barename issue
rssagent, generate minutes
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Zulah/zeckert/ Succeeded: s/thinks about/thinks yet another/ Succeeded: s/SG/Sandy/ Succeeded: s/prefix/NCName/ Succeeded: s/short hand/shorthand/ Succeeded: s/bare name/barename/ Succeeded: s/resolution: agreed// Found Scribe: Zulah Eckert Found ScribeNick: zeckert WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: James_Nurthen Jordan Julia Kirk Kumar MSM OracleMtgRm P16 Pratul Sandy Sandy_ aaaa ginny ginny_ johnarwe scribenick sml trackbot-ng zeckert You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Got date from IRC log name: 31 Mar 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/03/31-sml-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]