14:48:47 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:48:47 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-xproc-irc 14:48:54 zakim, this will be xml-proc 14:48:54 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, ht 14:49:01 zakim, this will be xproc 14:49:01 ok, ht; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 11 minutes 14:49:19 meeting: XProc telcon 14:49:28 Chair: Henry S. Thompson (pro tem) 14:49:35 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 14:49:39 ScribeNick: ht 14:49:49 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/06/12-agenda.html 14:56:23 PGrosso has joined #xproc 14:58:17 Hey Paul -- good holiday? 14:58:21 France? 15:00:01 Vojtech has joined #xproc 15:00:08 yes and yes 15:00:30 [weather could have been better, but the wine and food could not have been.] 15:00:40 Norm has joined #xproc 15:00:43 Good good 15:00:49 Ah, good Morning Norm 15:00:52 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 15:00:58 Morning ht 15:01:02 zakim, please call ht-781 15:01:03 +[ArborText] 15:01:04 ok, ht; the call is being made 15:01:06 +Ht 15:01:09 Alas, I'm not going to be able to call in 15:01:12 +Vojtech 15:01:15 Welcome home, PGrosso 15:01:51 Make what progress you can. It might be worth talking about the PSVI stuff in the editor's draft of a few days ago, if anyone has read it 15:02:19 Not me, alas -- I am neck-deep in boxes, recycling bags, burn bags, etc. 15:02:31 We're moving office, and I've been in this building for about 15 years 15:02:48 Ah. 15:03:07 No worries 15:03:19 Apologies: Richard Tobin, Norm Walsh 15:03:54 Present: Paul, Henry, Vojtech 15:04:35 Last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/06/05-minutes.html 15:04:56 Accepted. 15:05:20 Next meeting: 19 June 2008, no regrets known as yet 15:05:49 s/no regrets/regrets from Andrew only ones/ 15:06:12 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 15:06:44 MoZ has joined #xproc 15:06:55 Zakim, what is the code ? 15:06:57 +alexmilowski 15:07:02 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ 15:07:09 grrr... phone lost its mind... 15:07:10 -alexmilowski 15:07:31 s/Richard/Rui Lopes, Richard/ 15:07:43 MoZ, are you planning on dialing in? 15:07:45 +??P38 15:08:00 zakim, ? is MoZ 15:08:00 +MoZ; got it 15:08:20 Zakim, ??P38 is me 15:08:20 I already had ??P38 as MoZ, MoZ 15:08:27 time for a new office phone... 15:08:35 +alexmilowski 15:09:07 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2008May/0040.html 15:11:01 MZ: Features suggested by Alessandro's suggestions based on Haskell: 15:11:24 ... p:is-empty is covered by limit attr on p:count 15:11:43 ... p:pack has been added 15:12:20 ... split a sequence up until the first match of some pattern 15:13:07 http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#c.split-sequence 15:16:39 HT: Sounds straightforward 15:16:46 ... anyone see any difficulties? 15:17:07 MZ: This gives us functionality for dealing with sequences which it's difficult, if not impossible, to get any other way 15:17:17 HT: Better name than 'stop-test-after-first-false' ? 15:19:37 ... We get the initial subsequence which matches 15:19:46 AM: I get it 15:20:05 HT: How about 'initial-only' 15:20:55 AM: It's going to be opaque, people will have to look it up to understand it 15:21:30 RESOLVED: Add an 'initial-only' attribute to p:split-sequence, a boolean 15:21:41 ACTION: Alex Milowski to add an 'initial-only' attribute to p:split-sequence, a boolean 15:22:17 Topic: Serialization question 15:22:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2008Jun/0008.html 15:22:59 AM: The origin of the impl-defined for the defaults for unspec'd serialization options comes from the QT Serialization spec. 15:25:41 MZ: That's not what I was concerned about, rather that I read the spec. in 5.6 as allowing _other_ attributes which are not specified in the spec. 15:25:55 HT: Oops, this section and 7.3 need to be cross-referenced 15:26:59 s/and 7.3 need to be cross-referenced/needs to be cross-referenced from 7.3/ 15:27:43 AM, MZ: Discuss what 'unspecified' means here 15:33:52 HT: I think that the intent was that 'unspecified' refers to _options_ which are missing for a particular step 15:34:06 AM: Right 15:34:09 MZ: Yes 15:34:49 HT: But, alas, the Serialization step does not say that defaults are impl-defined 15:37:17 HT: Propose to delete the "default value" sentence from 5.3 15:38:01 RESOLVED: delete the "default value" sentence from 5.3 15:38:29 s/5.3/5.6/ 15:38:33 s/5.3/5.6/ 15:38:50 HT: Propose to amend the reference to 7.3 in 5.6 to read as follows: 15:39:42 The semantics and defaulting behaviour of the attributes on a p:serialization are as described for the corresponding options as described in Section 7.3, “Serialization Options”. 15:40:35 s/as described in// 15:41:16 -alexmilowski 15:41:19 phone lost its mind 15:41:22 ...again 15:42:05 +alexmilowski 15:42:11 RESOLVED: Amend the reference to 7.3 in 5.6 to read as follows: "The semantics and defaulting behaviour of the attributes on a p:serialization are as described for the corresponding options in Section 7.3, “Serialization Options”." 15:45:33 ACTION: Alex Milowski to draft a Note to add to 7.3 explaining that we don't give simple defaults, behaviour wrt missing options is complex and you have to read [Serialization] to find out. 15:46:59 ACTION: Alex Milowski to add an error to 7.3 to cover all other parameter-related Serialization errors 15:51:30 HT: I am opposed, it's a new feature, and it can be easily fitted into the existing spec. as an impl-defined serialization method 15:52:00 AM: I'm opposed also, we should wait for Serialization spec. to provide for this, so we don't find ourselves isolated when they do 15:53:40 [Oops, Scribe needs to add, before HT above, MZ: My email also proposes adding support for c14n to serialisation] 15:54:19 MZ: So, do you mean there would have to be two new methods, x:c14n-with-comments and x:c14n-without-comments 15:54:57 HT: No, I think you would have new options to go with impl-defined x:c14n method 15:56:00 AM: What happens when Serialization _does_ add support for c14n -- do those attributes/options move from prefixed to unprefixed? 15:56:18 HT: MSM would say "we should say 'Serialization or its successors'" 15:57:40 -PGrosso 15:57:41 -MoZ 15:57:41 -Vojtech 15:57:43 -alexmilowski 15:57:58 PGrosso has left #xproc 15:58:26 AM: The problem is that it's not hard to allow for new serialization _options_, when there's a new Serialization spec., but adding _attributes_ in no namespace to p:serialization is not allowed 15:58:45 ... Maybe we should provide for this ahead of time, with a specific namespace. 15:59:06 HT: We're out of time, AM please start an email thread on your idea, we'll pick it up next week 15:59:11 Adjourned 15:59:19 -Ht 15:59:20 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 15:59:21 Attendees were Ht, PGrosso, Vojtech, alexmilowski, MoZ 15:59:31 RRSAgent, make logs world-visible 15:59:41 zakim, bye 15:59:41 Zakim has left #xproc 15:59:47 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:59:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-xproc-minutes.html ht 15:59:54 RRSAgent, bye 15:59:54 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-xproc-actions.rdf : 15:59:54 ACTION: Alex Milowski to add an 'initial-only' attribute to p:split-sequence, a boolean [1] 15:59:54 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-xproc-irc#T15-21-41 15:59:54 ACTION: Alex Milowski to draft a Note to add to 7.3 explaining that we don't give simple defaults, behaviour wrt missing options is complex and you have to read [Serialization] to find out. [2] 15:59:54 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-xproc-irc#T15-45-33 15:59:54 ACTION: Alex Milowski to add an error to 7.3 to cover all other parameter-related Serialization errors [3] 15:59:54 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-xproc-irc#T15-46-59