14:44:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ixml
14:44:55 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/18-ixml-irc
14:45:06 <Steven> rrsagent, make logs public
14:45:15 <Steven> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ixml/2025Feb/0046
14:45:32 <Steven> Meeting: Invisible XML Community Group
14:45:32 <Steven> Chair: Steven
14:45:49 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
14:45:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/18-ixml-minutes.html Steven
14:46:07 <Steven> Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/02/04-ixml-minutes
14:46:16 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
14:46:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/18-ixml-minutes.html Steven
14:59:11 <Steven> Regrets: Frederik
14:59:15 <norm> norm has joined #ixml
14:59:29 <Steven> Present: Steven, John, Norm
14:59:53 <john> john has joined #ixml
15:00:49 <Steven> Present+David
15:01:54 <Steven> Present+Bethan
15:02:26 <Steven> s/Frederik/Fredrik
15:02:37 <Steven> Topic: Accept the minutes of the previous meeting
15:03:05 <Steven> We think they're OK
15:03:15 <Steven> Topic: Review of open actions
15:03:36 <Steven> [No news]
15:03:49 <Steven> Topic: Status reports
15:04:01 <Steven> Norm: Bug fixes]
15:04:09 <Steven> s/]//
15:04:24 <Steven> Steven: I'm writing my MarkupUK paper
15:04:46 <Steven> Norm: I updated the references
15:05:17 <Steven> Topic: Serialization
15:05:42 <Steven> Steven: We just say "serialization", without detail
15:05:48 <Steven> Norm: Slippery slope
15:06:06 <Steven> Steven: Leave as is?
15:06:25 <Steven> David: Perhaps, say that serialization is implementation dependent
15:06:41 <Steven> Norm: "Implementation defined"
15:07:33 <Steven> John: Serialization is actually translation from parse tree to XML output tree, and serialization is converting that to text, so I think "serialization" is the wrong term.
15:07:59 <Steven> David: "Serialization" is about ordering.
15:08:22 <Steven> ... it might be helpful to use another term.
15:08:36 <Steven> John: SO then entities is not part of ixml
15:09:06 <Steven> Norm: The spec requires serialized characters
15:09:36 <Steven> s/SO/So/
15:10:02 <Steven> Bethan: I'm not convinced that the spec's "serialization" doesn't really mean serialization.
15:10:41 <Steven> John: I don;t serialize to characters, but to a model
15:10:47 <Steven> s/;/'/
15:12:52 <Steven> Steven: I think the ixml spec (should) allow serializing to memory
15:15:44 <Steven> Bethan: I think the current spec intends an understanding of XML serialization
15:16:13 <Steven> Steven: I certainly didn't write it that way, and we donm't normaticely reference it
15:16:27 <Steven> s/normaticely/normatively
15:16:52 <Steven> s/donm't/don't/
15:17:13 <Steven> David: Calling it serialization is more than mildly confusing
15:18:07 <Steven> Norm: I think we should take the character-wise interpretation
15:19:05 <Steven> John: We've open a small can of worms. It's worth thinking about over a longer period.
15:20:17 <Steven> Topic: Pragmas
15:21:32 <Steven> BBethan: There has been a lot of email discussion
15:21:38 <Steven> s/BB/B/
15:22:24 <Steven> Norm: Item 9
15:23:02 <Steven> Steven: I think that the content of pragmas should be able to do that, but not necessary encoding that in the spec.
15:23:35 <Steven> Bethan: Shoudl the spec say what it emans when a pragma is in a particular position in the grammar
15:23:47 <Steven> s/Should/
15:23:57 <Steven> s/Shoudl/Should/
15:24:17 <Steven> Norm: The position of a pragma whoudl have a predictable place in the serialzation
15:24:35 <Steven> s/whoudl/should/
15:24:55 <Steven> s/serialzation/serialization
15:25:26 <Steven> Bethan: Pragmas have a syntactical role, but not a semantic role
15:25:47 <Steven> John: It provides a well-defined place where it is, which may affect scope
15:26:23 <Steven> ... it is defined where it is in the tree, and the semantics of that pragma defines the scope
15:26:38 <Steven> Bethan: I think we agree
15:27:14 <Steven> David: Item 9 doesn't specify that
15:27:41 <Steven> ... I could have a pragma at the beginning, that annotates something deep in the grammar.
15:29:46 <Steven> Bethan: I think 9 is a question of attachment and not annotation
15:30:11 <Steven> ... to which constructs in the grammar should it be possible to attach a pragma?
15:30:45 <Steven> ... 9 and 10 should both say attach and not annotate
15:31:05 <Steven> Norm: What do we mean by 'attach'?
15:33:42 <Steven> Bethan: Attachment is syntactic, and annotate is semantic.
15:34:28 <Steven> John: Suppose you had a prgram setting a priority; you could put it anywhere in the rule; it depends on the implementation.
15:34:45 <Steven> s/prgram/pragma
15:35:30 <Steven> ... there are others where the pragma has to be very close to the thiing it is talking about
15:35:52 <Steven> Bethan: Not sure if that is true. You could put them all at the root, it wouldn;t matter.
15:35:59 <Steven> s/;/'/
15:36:28 <Steven> ... I don't see any example where the pragma has to be absolutely attached to anything
15:38:07 <Steven> Steven: Iss 'attached' just placement in the grammar?
15:38:11 <Steven> Bethan: Yes.
15:39:45 <Steven> Steven: I still don't understand what 'attach' means
15:40:13 <Steven> David: Nowhere do we say that annotation and attachment are two sides of the operation
15:40:59 <Steven> Bethan: It may be best to talk about syntactic scope
15:41:45 <Steven> Norm: I propose that "attach" means 'is a child of'
15:41:56 <norm> in the XML representation of the grammar
15:48:55 <Steven> Steven: I think then I accept 9 and 10
15:53:34 <Steven> We agree on a version of 11 wihtout 'minimal', and agree on 12
15:53:56 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
15:53:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/18-ixml-minutes.html Steven
15:54:49 <Steven> s/it emans/it means/
15:55:27 <Steven> s/thiing/thing/
15:55:42 <Steven> s/Iss/Is/
15:56:07 <Steven> s/wihtout/without/
15:56:10 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
15:56:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/18-ixml-minutes.html Steven