14:53:21 RRSAgent has joined #ixml 14:53:25 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/01/21-ixml-irc 14:53:27 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 14:53:32 rrsagent, draft mintues 14:53:32 I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft mintues', norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help 14:53:36 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:53:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/21-ixml-minutes.html norm 14:54:12 Meeting: Invisible XML Community Group 14:54:15 Date: 21 January 2025 14:54:19 Chair: Steven 14:54:23 Scribe: Norm 14:55:26 btw has joined #ixml 15:01:28 Steven has joined #ixml 15:02:07 Present: Steven, Norm, John, Bethan, Nico, David 15:03:47 Topic: Accept the minutes of the previous meeting 15:03:55 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/01/07-ixml-minutes 15:04:52 Present: +Fredrik 15:04:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:04:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/21-ixml-minutes.html norm 15:05:24 Present: Steven, Norm, John, Bethan, Nico, David, Fredrik 15:05:28 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:05:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/21-ixml-minutes.html norm 15:05:51 Accepted. 15:05:52 Topic: Review of open actions 15:06:00 No progress reported. 15:06:06 Topic: Status reports 15:06:34 Bug reports and fixes here and there. 15:06:39 Topic: New open issues 15:06:42 None. 15:06:54 Topic: Pragma requirements 15:07:26 Bethan: Thanks to everyone who sent me requirements. I thought we'd go through them and see which ones we accept and which we need to discuss.' 15:07:43 s/discuss.'/discuss./ 15:08:06 John: Could a pragma be attached anywhere? 15:08:40 Bethan: I tried not to answer any of those questions; we need to answer those questions. 15:08:53 Steven: In that case, I object to "always attach"; it "may be" attached. 15:09:09 Some discussion of what it means to have a pragma that is or isn't attached to something. 15:09:35 Nico: It needs to be attached because that establishes the scope. 15:09:53 Steven: If it says "use parsing XYZ" is that still attached to something? 15:09:57 Bethan: Yes, that's for the whole grammar. 15:11:00 Further discussion of what an "unattached" pragma might mean. 15:11:32 Steven: I think the content of a pragma might be attached, but not the pragma itself. 15:12:17 Some discussion of where the pragma might appear in the XML representation and what that means. 15:13:26 Some discussion of what the word "attach" means. 15:14:07 Steven: I can imagine a pragma might want to talk about some structure... 15:14:23 David: Might it be clearer if we used the term "scope" instead of "attach" 15:14:44 Bethan: That's also in the description. 15:15:15 John: We do know one thing, in terms of the iXML grammar, we have atoms, the symobols. We know that pragmas cannot be inside an atom, inside a terminal string for example. 15:15:29 Bethan: Yes, I think that's right. 15:16:05 Bethan: If all of the pramgas were placed at the end of the grammar and said what they annotated; I'd describe them as being attached to the grammar and expressing their scope in the pragma data. 15:16:33 ... but in the XML, they'd have to be a child of the root element. But if we place them physically next to the constructs they annotation, we'd probably want them to be children. 15:16:37 Steven: I don't agree. 15:17:28 Nico: If you wanted to have a pragma that applied to many nonterminals, you might want to put it at the beginning of the grammar. 15:17:40 Further discussion of what "attach" means. 15:18:07 Bethan: It means it has a syntactic relationship with some element in the grammar, for example in the XML representation. 15:19:30 Nico: Aren't "attach" and "scope" inverse? 15:20:16 Fredrik: Thinking about the use of pragmas; one use I'd like is to add hints to the grammar so that the tool could know that, for example, the author thinks this is a top-down parser. 15:20:32 ... It could be useful if you see that there's a part of a grammar that's top-down. 15:20:52 ... And then, my attention is to annotate a rule and its children. In that case, I associate with the pragma with the rule nearest it somehow. 15:21:11 Steven: I see pragmas as a place where software can do stuff. 15:23:13 Norm: I think it's perverse to say that pragmas are "just comments" and that how they are bound to constructs is entirely up to the individual implementations. 15:23:59 Bethan: Where does the pragma go in the XML? 15:24:26 Steven: I haven't been convinced there's a reason to cast this into the specification. 15:24:47 Bethan: So two different iXML processors could produce different XML serializations of the same grammar. 15:24:52 Steven: Yes. 15:24:57 Bethan: That's what I'm trying to avoid. 15:26:11 Fredrik: I think it's obvious that the pragma should appear in a predefined place in the XML based on the grammar. 15:26:15 Steven: Yes. 15:26:58 Fredrik: Maybe the requirement formulation should say something about where the pragma will appear. 15:28:11 Bethan: There's nothing in the requirements that says pragmas are comments. We have to decide that. 15:28:46 ... The terms "attach" and "scope" are just intended to help us understand what the requirements that follow mean. 15:29:31 ... Attach is about the syntactic placement and annotate is about the semantics. 15:30:39 ... We need some way to talk about the syntactic placement and semantic scope of pragmas. 15:30:55 Steven: They're only useful if they're unambiguous. 15:31:23 John: We have some precedent in one sense, we have comments in the definition of iXML and we have mapping of exactly where there go in the XML tree. 15:31:59 ... It's not reversible. A comment that sat on one side or another of a ":" isn't necessarily going to go on the same side if you go back to text. 15:32:17 ... I think we need a good mapping for pragmas. 15:32:53 Bethan: That's useful. Stepping back a little, the definition doesn't say anything about the placement, it just says that when we see a pragma, we know where it goes in XML. 15:33:06 John: Why did you decide that comments must appear in the XML? 15:33:27 Steven: I didn't. I originally deleted them all. Michael insisted that they be in the XML. 15:33:50 John: Comments can move around. 15:35:01 Steven: Is there a difference between "attach" and "positioned in some syntactic construct"? 15:35:16 Bethan: I wouldn't necessarily say that a pragma is positioned in a construct; that's less general. 15:35:43 ... I think attached is somewhat more neutral than positioned at or in or before or after. 15:36:16 Bethan: Would it help to move onto the requirements and see if our concerns about the definitions actually interferes with understanding. 15:36:34 Bethan: Rule 1: A pragma must not change the semantics of an iXML grammar - that is, it must not cause the processor to produce a parse tree which could never be produced using the same grammar if the pragma were removed. 15:37:06 Steven: I'm not sure, I'd have to think about it more. 15:39:36 Proposal: add "according to the specification" in rule 1. 15:40:22 Consensus: with that amendment we accept rule 1. 15:40:50 Some discussion of the use of deep equal and a canonical serialization. 15:41:29 Bethan: Rule 2: Removing a pragma from an iXML grammar must not affect the syntactic validity of that grammar. 15:41:34 Consensus: accepted 15:41:57 Rule 3: Pragmas must not be an important part of iXML. 15:42:06 Norm: What does that mean? 15:42:15 Steven: It means they aren't necessary. 15:42:26 Nico: So a processor that completely ignores pragmas is still conformant? 15:42:29 Steven: Yes. 15:42:56 John: In the spirit of Michael, you could get a case where by putting in a pragma you could get answer out. 15:43:31 Norm: Could we just say "support for pragmas must be optional?" 15:43:39 David: That seems clearer. 15:44:21 Some discussion of whether or not even needed if it's implied by the first two rules. 15:45:31 Bethan: Rule 4: Pragmas must only be used for communicating with software. 15:45:49 Steven: I think I said "are for" not "must only". 15:46:12 Bethan; Yes, but as a requirement or desiderata it needs to have "must" or "should" in it. 15:46:27 ... an existential statement is harder to evaluate. 15:48:33 ... I'd be happier to change it to a "should". 15:49:00 Steven: It doesn't really express what I wanted to say. 15:49:37 Further discussion of whether or not "pragmas are for communicating with software" is a useful benchmark. 15:49:46 Steven: In that case, I'd prefer a "must". 15:49:54 Consensus: accepted 15:51:25 Some discussion of how we should have a discussion about this. 15:51:40 Consensus drifts towards email. 15:51:55 Bethan: Rule 5: Pragmas must be defined in the iXML specification without consideration of, or reference to, the needs of any particular processing software. 15:52:05 Consensus: accepted. 15:53:13 Topic: Any other business 15:53:18 Possible regrets from John. 15:53:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:53:33 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/21-ixml-minutes.html norm 15:53:59 Steven: And remember that the CfP for both MarkupUK and Balisage are now open. 15:54:02 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:54:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/21-ixml-minutes.html norm