15:59:50 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 15:59:50 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-xproc-irc 15:59:54 Zakim, this will be xproc 15:59:54 ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute 16:00:01 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 16:00:01 Date: 7 Jan 2010 16:00:01 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/07-agenda 16:00:01 Meeting: 163 16:00:01 Chair: Norm 16:00:02 Scribe: Norm 16:00:04 ScribeNick: Norm 16:00:11 zakim, please call ht-781 16:00:11 ok, ht; the call is being made 16:00:12 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 16:00:13 +Ht 16:00:25 PGrosso has joined #xproc 16:00:49 Vojtech has joined #xproc 16:01:06 +[ArborText] 16:01:16 +Norm 16:02:34 +Vojtech 16:02:38 MoZ has joined #xproc 16:04:06 Zakim, what's the code? 16:04:06 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ 16:04:19 +MoZ 16:04:53 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 16:05:30 +Alex_Milows 16:06:07 Happy New Year to all! 16:06:08 Topic: Accept this agenda? 16:06:08 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/07-agenda 16:06:25 Accepted. 16:06:30 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 16:06:30 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes 16:07:10 Topic: Next meeting: telcon, 14 Jan 2010? 16:07:35 Norm gives likely regrets; Henry to chair. 16:07:41 Henry gives regrets for 21 Jan 16:08:01 Vojtech gives regrets for 21 Jan 16:08:21 Topic: New Last Call WD published 16:08:38 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/ 16:09:00 Norm: End of L/C is 2 Feb. I'll start a new comments list asap. 16:09:42 Topic: Creating MIME documents with p:http-request 16:09:46 s/MIME/MIME multipart/ 16:10:19 Norm attempts to recount his experience. 16:12:17 Norm: The HTTP ApacheClient library doesn't appear to produce what we expect. 16:12:25 Vojtech: We build the multipart data ourselves. 16:12:38 Norm: Ok, that was my other thought. 16:13:26 Norm: Producing isn't to hard so maybe that's the right answer. 16:13:45 Henry: Library support for producing MIME multipart is somewhere between non-existant and broken 16:14:13 Alex: Content-disposition is the one we can't handle directly. That's an oversight on our part. 16:14:27 ...Content-ID is for internal relationships. Content-disposition is for the receiver. 16:14:59 ...I'm sending you a bunch of files, here are the names you should use; here are the dates you should use, etc. 16:15:30 ...It's not a required header, so we could leave it out. But it makes sending a group of files really hard. The Content-disposition header is how the receiver knows what it should be. 16:16:35 Norm: You can construct the headers yourself, right? 16:16:40 Alex: No. We don't let you put headers in. 16:16:49 Norm: So you can't associate X-foo: with an arbitrary body part and that's ok? 16:16:57 Alex: I think it was the right choice when we did it. 16:18:04 Alex: I think it's a very rational position to take, the multipart spec doesn't encourage additional headers on individual bodies. 16:18:23 -> http://www.w3.org/mid/28d56ece0912171510k4ce5e358g5a155bd7b0957a35@mail.gmail.com 16:20:03 Alex: We just missed one. 16:20:21 ...We probably should have added a disposition attribute, but we just went back to last call. 16:20:41 ...The receiver will just have to handle the fact that the sender doesn't provide filenames. 16:21:01 Norm: That clarifies things for me. 16:21:23 Vojtech: So what does content-disposition mean for the XProc processor itself? 16:23:09 Norm: Yeah, where do those headers go? 16:23:15 Alex: They fall on the floor. 16:25:39 Some discussion of how to deal with these. 16:26:07 Henry: I'd be happier with some form of extensible solution. 16:28:01 Some discussion of the modelling. The headers on c:multipart are for the multipart message. 16:29:56 Vojtech: If the attributes map to the headers, we should name them content-id, content-description, etc. 16:30:18 Alex: For additional headers, we'd have to have a story about how to create attributes for them. 16:31:38 Norm: I don't know if we should try to fix the general problem, or just deal with what we actually expect 16:31:55 Alex: We could add a disposition header today and leave adding a c:multipart-body to some future version. 16:32:26 Norm: Indeed. And if no one ever asks, we never have to do it. 16:34:43 Norm: So our options appear to be: (1) do nothing, (2) add a disposition attribute, (3) invent a more complex but extensible story 16:35:07 Zakim, who's here? 16:35:07 On the phone I see Ht, PGrosso, Norm, Vojtech, MoZ, Alex_Milows 16:35:08 On IRC I see alexmilowski, MoZ, Vojtech, PGrosso, RRSAgent, Zakim, ht, Norm 16:36:25 section 6.1 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2387 16:36:40 Straw poll: (2) gets 4 votes, (3) gets 2. 16:36:45 ...(1) gets none. 16:38:03 Proposal: For V1, add a disposition attribute for specifying the content-disposition. 16:38:13 ...to c:body 16:38:46 Henry/Vojtech: Do these make sense outside the multipart context? 16:39:34 Norm: I don't think it causes any harm to send the headers in the non-multipart case. 16:40:04 Alex: You can send any headers you want. I think the technical question is whether description and disposition set those headers. 16:40:23 Norm: I propose if you set the attribute, the header is sent, multipart or not. 16:40:47 Accepted. We'll add disposition. 16:40:57 Norm: Do we want to take up the question fo renaming these attributes? 16:41:01 s/fo/of/ 16:41:27 Henry: No, because it's unnecessarily verbose. 16:41:28 Norm: ok 16:42:38 ACTION: Norm to produce a new WD 16:42:55 s/WD/WD reflecting the new attribute./ 16:43:05 Topic: Comments on the latest draft? 16:43:20 Norm: A few on the list, I'll generate a new status page as I said, any comments from WG members at the moment? 16:44:04 Vojtech: Currently we say that we use the XSLT Match Pattern for things like Viewport, but we don't say what version. 16:44:13 ...The processor doesn't know which XSLT version to use. 16:46:11 Henry: I'd rather not put this in user control. I think our earlier decision this was the intersection was small. We should encourage implementors to use XSLT 2.0 if they support it and use 1.0 otherwise. 16:47:21 Vojtech: You can say xpath-version is 2.0 in a pipeline, but you can't do the same thing with match patterns. 16:47:49 Henry: I'd prefer to say that the xpath-version switch controls the match patterns as well. 16:48:10 Vojtech: What about XSLT 3.7 and there's no corresponding XPath version. 16:48:18 Alex: That's for V2 or implementation defined features. 16:48:31 ...In V2 we can add a new function if we really need to. 16:50:18 Vojtech: If you bind them together, then you can't break that in V2. So that seems risky. 16:50:57 Norm: Good point. In that case, I think I'd prefer to say that you can't test it in V1 and it's impl defined. 16:51:00 -Alex_Milows 16:51:35 Topic: Test suite progress? 16:51:41 Norm: I don't think there's a lot to say. 16:52:10 Norm: I haven't run against it recently. 16:52:18 Vojtech: Calumet is doing well. 16:52:50 ...The multipart tests are also failing. 16:54:01 Some discussion of the fact that it's hard to generate identical results for the multipart tests. 16:55:08 Norm: If you think you pass, you're done. It may never be possible to get the test suite machinery to deal with those tests adequately. 16:55:18 Topic: Default processing model progress? 16:55:35 Henry: We've had some comments, but I haven't made any progress. 16:55:43 ...Not likely to be ready for next week. 16:55:50 Topic: Any other business? 16:55:51 None heard. 16:55:55 Adjourned. 16:56:05 -Norm 16:56:06 -PGrosso 16:56:06 -Vojtech 16:56:07 -MoZ 16:56:08 -Ht 16:56:08 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 16:56:08 rrsagnet, set logs world-visible 16:56:09 Attendees were Ht, PGrosso, Norm, Vojtech, MoZ, Alex_Milows 16:56:16 RRSAgent, set logs world-visible 16:56:19 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:56:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-xproc-minutes.html Norm 16:56:47 PGrosso has left #xproc 18:06:22 htt has joined #xproc 18:31:05 htt has joined #xproc 18:33:47 alexmilowski has left #xproc 18:41:57 Zakim has left #xproc