14:58:33 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:58:33 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-xproc-irc 14:58:35 Zakim has joined #xproc 14:58:36 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 14:58:36 Date: 30 Apr 2009 14:58:36 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-agenda 14:58:36 Meeting: 142 14:58:36 Chair: Norm 14:58:38 Scribe: Norm 14:58:40 ScribeNick: Norm 14:58:42 Regrets: Vojtech 14:58:56 Norm has changed the topic to: XProc WG meets 30 Apr 2009: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-agenda 14:59:36 PGrosso has joined #xproc 15:00:52 Zakim, this is xproc 15:00:52 ok, Norm; that matches XML_PMWG()11:00AM 15:00:56 Zakim, what's the passcode? 15:00:58 Zakim, this is .....too late 15:00:59 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Norm 15:01:05 sorry, PGrosso, I do not see a conference named '.....too late' in progress or scheduled at this time 15:01:09 +Norm 15:01:09 Zakim, this is xproc 15:01:10 Norm, this was already XML_PMWG()11:00AM 15:01:11 ok, Norm; that matches XML_PMWG()11:00AM 15:01:37 MoZ has joined #xproc 15:01:51 zakim, please call ht-781 15:01:51 ok, ht; the call is being made 15:01:53 +Ht 15:02:36 Zakim, what is the code ? 15:02:36 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ 15:03:20 + +95247aaaa 15:03:25 Zakim, aaaa is me 15:03:26 +MoZ; got it 15:04:37 Zakim, who is here ? 15:04:37 On the phone I see PGrosso, Norm, Ht (muted), MoZ 15:04:38 On IRC I see MoZ, PGrosso, Zakim, RRSAgent, Norm, ht_home, ht 15:05:04 ack ht 15:06:07 Present: Norm, Henry, Mohamed, Paul 15:06:16 Topic: Accept this agenda? 15:06:16 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-agenda 15:06:21 Accepted 15:06:31 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 15:06:31 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes 15:06:32 Accepted 15:06:48 Topic: Next meeting: telcon 7 May 2009 15:06:52 No regrets given. 15:07:37 Topic: 103 p:validate-with-xml-schema - multiple schemas 15:07:59 Norm: We have a partial resolution, I propose that we leave the rest implementation dependent. 15:08:01 s/dent/dant/ 15:10:07 MoZ: Why implementation-dependent? 15:10:14 Norm: Uhhh... 15:10:23 Henry: Because it will depend on what the underlying validator will do. 15:10:35 Norm: And because in 2.2.1 we say implementation-dependent mostly. 15:11:13 Norm: Anyone think we can answer 103 normatively w/o making changes to 2.2.1? 15:11:14 None heard 15:11:27 Proposal: The behavior is implementation-dependent. 15:11:37 Accepted. 15:12:04 Topic: 124 XQuery 1.0 15:12:40 Norm summarizes the email 15:13:20 Norm: In short, I want to take the version numbers out and say that the p:xquery step (for example) does XQuery, the exact versions of which being implementation-defined. 15:13:35 MoZ: I'm concerned because it opens an interoperability problem. We explicitly solved this problem for XSLT. 15:14:06 Henry: Yeah, but most W3C specs are moving in this direction. In general, it seems to me that it's an overall improvement to the value proposition for our users if as many tools as possible support as many versions as possible. 15:14:49 Norm: Right. In particular, I want to avoid making an impl non-conformant just because a new version of XQuery comes out. 15:15:06 Henry: I shouldn't have said version, because I've been falling into the habit of assuming everyone will follow the rules. 15:15:30 ...I'm happy to say "this or subsequent versions" on the assumption that there will be backwards compatibility. 15:15:41 s/subsequent versions/subsequent editions/ 15:16:13 Norm: So you do want to make an XProc impl non-conformant if it supports XQuery 1.1 or 2.0? 15:16:44 Henry: I don't want an implementation that only supports XQuery 2.0. 15:17:12 ...And if I want to be careful, I have to go further and say only an XQuery 2.0 that's not backwards compatible with 1.0. 15:17:27 MoZ: Can we say XQuery 1.0 or subsequent edition or version that is backwards compatible with 1.0. 15:18:03 Norm: I guess I could live with that. 15:19:06 Henry: I was going to add one more bit of flexibility: as well as other non-backwards compatible versions at user option. 15:19:52 ...The point is, you must support something that's backward compatible with what we spec, but you can do other things if you give the user control. 15:20:01 MoZ: I like it, and I think we should say the same thing for p:xsl-formatter. 15:20:09 Norm: Fine by me. 15:20:42 MoZ: What is the expecte behavior for XML Schema? 15:20:50 s/expecte/expect/ 15:21:03 ...If the processor only handles 1.1 and not 1.0, is it something we want to avoid or allow? 15:21:10 Norm: Should we say the same thing for XML Schema? 15:21:22 Henry: I'd even think we could go so far as to say this once at the top of the document. 15:21:33 Norm: I'm ok with that. 15:21:41 s/at the top of/in the/ 15:22:27 Proposal: steps must implement the specified version or any subsequent version that is backwards compatible. At user option, they may support other, non-compatible versions. 15:23:07 s/subsequent version/subsequent edition or version/ 15:23:34 s/non-compatible versions./non-compatible versions or extensions./ 15:23:53 Accepted. 15:24:16 Topic: 127 rejecting invalid/unsupported p:serialization options 15:25:16 Norm summarizes. 15:25:53 Norm: I think it boils down to saying that an implementation MAY or MUST or MUST NOT check serialization options even if it's not serializing. 15:25:58 MoZ: I think MAY is sensible. 15:26:36 Norm: I think that's probably right. It's a small interop problem, but only on pipelines that aren't, in some sense, correct. 15:26:48 Proposal: Use MAY 15:27:03 Accepted. 15:27:26 Topic: 128: default namespaces 15:27:28 Norm summrizes. 15:29:08 MoZ: For elements, it's explicit in XPath 1.0; for function calls it's in XSLT. 15:29:14 ...We definitely have to note it. 15:30:18 Norm: I think we should say that element names w/o a prefix are in no namespace, function names w/o a prefix always invoke the underlying XPath functions. They are not effected by any in-scope binding for the default namespace. 15:30:45 MoZ: I think that for 2.0, it's already said in the spec. It's only when you're in 1.0 when you have to say that. 15:31:17 Norm: The other part is, in an XPath 2.0 implentation, we don't provide any mechnaims for change the default function namespace. 15:31:33 Accepted. 15:31:53 Norm: We have closed all of the outstanding comments on XProc! 15:31:58 Topic: Next steps 15:32:16 1. The default processing model 15:32:39 2. Get to PR! 15:33:01 3. A complete test suite 15:33:21 4. We've missed our heartbeat requirement 15:33:52 Norm: Proposal: we publish a new CR draft, containing all of the resolutions sometime in May then work on finishing the test suite while we talk about the default processing model. 15:34:54 Paul: We're not going to CR again? 15:35:06 Norm: No, we're not. 15:35:13 Henry: It's going to be published as CR in TR space. 15:36:27 Norm: Anyone think that's a bad plan? 15:36:44 MoZ: I think it's a good plan. 15:36:57 ...We need to say that we're moving forward. 15:38:05 ...We'll have a chance to encourage people to help us with the test suite. 15:38:27 Topic: Default processing model. 15:38:31 Not ready for discussion this week 15:38:36 Topic: Any other business? 15:38:41 None heard. 15:38:43 Adjourned. 15:38:51 -Norm 15:38:52 -PGrosso 15:38:55 RRSAgent, set logs world-visible 15:38:56 -Ht 15:38:58 -MoZ 15:38:58 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 15:38:59 Attendees were PGrosso, Norm, Ht, +95247aaaa, MoZ 15:38:59 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:38:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-xproc-minutes.html Norm 15:39:08 PGrosso has left #xproc 15:53:41 Norm has joined #xproc 16:13:26 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:13:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-xproc-minutes.html Norm 17:24:56 Zakim has left #xproc 17:49:07 RRSAgent, bye 17:49:07 I see no action items