15:01:00 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 15:01:00 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-irc 15:01:02 Zakim has joined #xproc 15:01:04 Regrets: Henry, Mohamed 15:01:06 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 15:01:08 Date: 9 Apr 2009 15:01:11 PGrosso has joined #xproc 15:01:12 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-agenda 15:01:14 Meeting: 139 15:01:16 Chair: Norm 15:01:18 Scribe: Norm 15:01:20 ScribeNick: Norm 15:01:22 Regrets: Henry, Mohamed 15:01:24 Zakim, this will be xproc 15:01:24 ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now 15:01:45 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 15:01:51 +Norm 15:01:52 +[ArborText] 15:01:57 +??P20 15:02:01 zakim, ? is me 15:02:01 +richard; got it 15:02:37 +Jeroen 15:02:48 Zakim, Jeroen is Vojtech 15:02:49 +Vojtech; got it 15:04:05 Present: Norm, Richard, Paul, Vojtech 15:04:23 Topic: Accept this agenda? 15:04:23 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-agenda 15:04:32 Accepted. 15:04:38 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 15:04:38 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/03/19-minutes 15:04:53 Accepted. 15:05:08 Topic: Next meeting: telcon 16 Apr 2009? 15:05:12 No regrets heard. 15:06:04 Topic: CR126 Request from TAG: Status of work on default processing model 15:06:31 Paul: Are we still planning to try to address that? 15:06:48 Norm: I think I'd like us to take a look at it 15:06:59 Richard: Is the TAG responsible for overlapping things? 15:07:26 Norm: I think the TAG is looking at some related issues, but they probably hope we'll provide some guidance. 15:07:36 Richard: The description in the charter is pretty vague, perhaps we could get more specifics? 15:07:56 Norm: Yes. Indeed. 15:08:49 ACTION: Norm/Henry to attempt to provide a more crisp description of what's needed as a first step towards getting to this work. 15:09:12 Richard: Use cases would be a good place to start. I've long imagined that one such use case is to answer the question "what does a web browser do with an XML document" 15:10:01 Norm: I'll work this into the agenda more regularly so that we can track our progress. 15:10:51 Topic: CR 100/101 Section 5.11, the inherited environment, and input/output ports. 15:10:59 Norm attempts to summarize. 15:11:50 Norm: I think the answer, whether the prose is clear or not, is that steps can't see their own inputs and outputs. The question of 5.11 is an attempt, I think to address the special case of p:output on a compound step. 15:14:33 Richard: The outputs of a compound step are surely in the same state as the other step children of a subpipeline? 15:15:13 Vojtech: I thought that in 5.11 the phrase "In all cases except the p:output of a compound step" was redundant. 15:16:00 ...When I read it, I went looking to see what was so special, but in fact I think it's covered by the other definitions. It isn't special. 15:16:20 Norm: Fair enough, I'm happy to remove the phrase if it causes more confusion than clarity. 15:16:26 Vojtech: Unless I missed something, I wasn't sure. 15:17:45 Further discussion of 2.5 15:24:13 Norm: In 100, the magic phrase from 2.5 is "the container's contained steps". Compound steps see their siblings, but not themselves. 15:24:44 Vojtech: I have a compound step. It sees the output ports of its contained steps. Suppose one of the contained steps is a compound step. 15:25:03 ...Now inside that compound step, this step inherites the visibility of the output ports from its parent, which means that it sees it's output port. 15:25:29 Richard: No, it sees the output ports of its siblings, not its parent. 15:27:31 Norm: I think that second bullet in 2.5 needs to clarify that it doesn't apply to the contained step itself. 15:29:19 Norm: To fix issue 100, we need to say "The union of all the declared outputs of all of the containers's contained steps *except this step* are added to the readable ports." But in better English. 15:31:35 Agreed. 15:31:55 Norm: Coming back to 101, I now think that prose is correct. It wouldn't be allowed according to the rules and rather than rewrite the rules to allow it, we're simply stating an exception. 15:32:03 Agreed. 15:32:19 ACTION: Norm to fix the rules in 2.5 to satisfy CR #100. CR #101 can be closed without action. 15:32:52 Topic: #104 validate-with-xml-schema - multiple schemas provided 15:33:19 Vojtech: If you have the validate with XML Schema step and you pass multiple schemas, what does that mean. 15:35:47 Norm attempts to describe the schema validation rules of XSD. 15:36:02 Vojtech: And what about xs:include and xs:import. 15:36:29 Norm: I propose we wait for Henry's input. 15:36:49 Topic: 105 p:xquery and c:data 15:38:45 Vojtech explains. 15:39:01 Norm: It boils down to whether the 3rd or 4th bullet in 7.2.9 applies. I don't think it much matters. 15:39:52 Vojtech: I think we should say that it's c:data without a content-type or with a content-type that specifies a text content type...something like that. 15:40:09 Norm: That works for me. 15:40:20 Norm: Proposed: make the change that Vojtech outlines. 15:40:36 Accepted. 15:40:58 Topic: #106 p:exec - path separators 15:42:24 Norm: My proposal is that "you lose" if you get mixtures of slashes and you turn on fix-slashes. 15:43:36 Vojtech: So you lose if you need a mixture fo forward and backward slashes in the filename 15:44:05 Norm: Only if you turn on the fix-slashes option. 15:45:41 Norm: It seems like we have two choices, leave it as is or invent a new escaping mechanism. 15:46:02 Richard: We could use a private use character or allow the fix-slashes option to specify which character to replace with the platform-specific slash. 15:47:37 Norm: We've made pretty significant changes to p:exec already. 15:48:13 Richard: I think I'd say that no-translation is applied unless you specify the fixup and then that fixup is applied everywhere. 15:49:28 Vojtech: It sounds good to me. 15:49:44 Norm: How about I write up a proposal that does this and we see if we like it. 15:50:05 ACTION: Norm to write this up as a proposal. 15:52:38 Topic: #107 p:exec - multiple source documents 15:52:51 Vojtech: What do multiple source documents mean? Is it only to allow no documents? 15:53:00 Norm: Yes, I think it probably was. 15:53:07 Vojtech: So what happens if you pass two, is it an error? 15:53:35 Norm: I think we should either say that its an error or say that its implementation-defined. 15:54:54 Norm: Do you have any command-line tools that accept a sequence of documents on stdin? 15:55:00 Richard: No, I don't think so. 15:55:42 Norm: I propose we make it an error in V1 to pass a sequence of more than one document. 15:56:39 Accepted. 15:56:45 Topic: Any other business? 15:56:54 None heard. 15:56:57 -PGrosso 15:56:58 -Norm 15:56:59 -richard 15:56:59 -Vojtech 15:57:00 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 15:57:01 Attendees were Norm, PGrosso, richard, Vojtech 15:57:04 RRSAgent, set logs world-visible 15:57:08 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:57:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-minutes.html Norm 15:57:48 PGrosso has left #xproc 17:32:20 Zakim has left #xproc 17:36:22 Norm has joined #xproc