See also: IRC log
Issues list: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
Issue 3: We think this is closed but need to check with Liam to verifiy.
<ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
<ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.xml#non-normative-references
<scribe> ACTION: Editors to remove "particularly" clause in section 5 as this may lead to inferences that we do not want. See Henry's brain. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action01]
Discusion of Issue 7: Henry was recalling his memory of the lead up to taking this to XML Core and how XHTML treats entity definitions.
Henry: standalone=yes does not cause
an error ... no difference for a well-formed parser.
... No need to change the default because it won't change the
behavior of the parsers in use for XHTML in browsers.
... XHTML5 maps any public identifier to a pre-defined external
subset.
Paul: What are the datatypes available?
Henry: Only DTD datatypes.
Some discussion of attribute definitions, NMTokens, and tokenization available when parsers encounter definitions.
Some more digging into what HTML5 says about doctypes and entity definitions.
Henry: Core says "there is nothing here" ... we're done.
Alex: I agree
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to close issue 7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to try to get agreement from Henri Sivonen on issue 9. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action03]
Discussion on Issue 19
Paul: Look at paragraph 3 ...
<scribe> ACTION: Editor (HST) to use Paul's version of paragraph 3. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: Editor (HST) to change "is an attempt to give" to "gives" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to suggest how new intro will be integrated into the document. Where does this fit in? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action06]
<ht> HST proposes wrt issue 19 that we relabel section 1 as 'Introduction', push the existing prose down to subsection 1.1 Background, and make Norm's new prose the body text of section 1
With the actions taken today, we will have closed all the issues today, hopefully to the satisfaction of the commentators.
Last issue is issue 8
Issue 8.2: Address by adding different profiles.
Issue 8.2: We kept basic and added external declaration profile.
Henry: Agreed.
Working group endorses suggested solution to 8.2
Issue 8.3: Class V starts to address this. Do we need to add a full validating profile? We've minimally addressed this.
Issue 8.3: We've also added section 7: Validation.
Working group endorses solution to 8.3
Issue 8.5: Possibly add a diagram?
Henry: This should be added to 4.2
Vojtech: Maybe we want to rename the profile classes so that they make more sense in the diagram?
Henry: We need all the classes we have. Renaming them may make sense.
Alex: Maybe we finish the diagram and see what makes sense.
Some discussion between Henry & Murray about the classes & validation.
Murray: Validating XML processors must read & process the external declarations...
Henry: (Reads the spec saying that as so ...)
A processor that validates but doesn't read external declarations isn't a conforming XML processor.
Henry: (Paraphrasing the discussion) Making validation optional or required is incoherent against the profiles.
Alex: I'm feeling uneasy about this. As a user you can pick a profile and turn on validation and do the wrong thing.
Henry: We need to say something about this.
(Murray is point at the diagram making good points about validation and profiles.)
Murray: In the case where you are enabling the XInclude and validation flag, can we say "it is recommended" or "required" that you validate after the XInclude?
Henry: Instead of three, there are only two: before or after.
Paul: Isn't that the [status quo].
Henry: It is coherent to validate first because you'll get element content whitespace ...
Comment: We have "id xml processor
profile" but the profile adds xml:id. Maybe this should be the
"xml:id XML Processor profile"
... Maybe we should make "XML Processor Profile" less redundant in
the document.
Paul: On issue 8.5, what are the remaining questions?
The validation questions relate to 8.3. We need to re-open this issue.
Paul: We can close 8.5 by adding the diagram.
Henry: It is perfectly valid to provide XML Schema validation for any of the profiles. ... it is not the same for DTD validation.
Paul: We can close 8.3 and 8.5 and open a new issue about validation.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry will draft the new issue. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action07]
<ht> New issue: How to expand section 7 in the draft (and possible earlier bits) to clarify the distinction between DTD validation and validation in general
<ht> ... DTD validation is _not_ orthogonal, e.g. Basic+DTD Validation is not conformant with XML spec
<ht> ... but e.g. Schema validation is orthogonal
<ht> ... Also, expand the discussion of ordering of xinclude and validation
Issue 8.7: In profiles external declarations (2.3) and full (2.4), "reading and processing" versus "processing."
Henry: That prose is directly from
the XML specification and I'm reluctant to fix it.
... [ this text intended to reproduce what the XML spec says ]
The link in the profiles document takes you to the location in the XML specification that has the relevant text.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to attempt to separate the two parts of #1 on 2.3/2.4. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action08]
<scribe> ACTION: HST to fix Issue 8.8 as Editorial [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action09]
Henry: Instead of steps necessary, they are steps "preparatory" .
The profile steps are not "steps" ...
<scribe> ACTION: Henry will rework the introduction to section 2. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action10]
"Step" is the wrong word throughout the profile section ... Henry will look at this as well.
Issue 8.9, action to henry
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to review the use of conformance in section 4. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action11]
Issue 8.10: There have been changes that may have addressed this.
Henry: word 'rigid' is still there.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to soften language in the first paragraph of Section 1, Background. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action12]
Issue 8.12
Henry: remove "since this specification is not implementable as such" and this will be fixed.
Alex: What did the infoset do about
this?
... We use "require" in each of the profile.
Henry: We define conformance
...
... make it be that conformance starts when some other
specification references our specification.
... It is going to define what it means to conform to a
profile.
... [ a substantive change to section 6 to address issue 8.12]
This specification doesn't have implementations but it does have specifications that conform to it.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to change section 6 to address 8.12 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action13]
Issue 8.14
Henry: XPath 2 distinguished between implementation defined and implementation determined.
[choice vs unspecified]
implementation dependent vs implementation defined
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to clarify use of term to address 8.14. Take suggested fix. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action14]
Issue 8.16
The names may change again
<scribe> In progress...
Henry to consider moving the tabulation to the front of section 3.
Alex: I like having the class definitions first so you know what the table is about.
Henry: It might be more useful to have more descriptive names: Class A: Items and properties fundamental to all XML documents.
Alex: Maybe change the class definitions to have two parts: the description of the class and the requirements on the properties.
Issue 8.4
Still open, James is building a list.
Issue 8.11
Henry: We can use this for an implementation report.
Alex: There is a distinction between the options and the common use of those options in a product (e.g. Chrome/Safari)
James is working on this.
Alex: I volunteer for helping with WebKit et. al.
Issue 8.6
Henry/Murray: "ID type assignment" language...
<scribe> ACTION: HST to address 8.6 by taking the suggestion by using http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/#inform and taking "ID type assignment" and forcing bullet #1. See minutes. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action15]
"Perform ID type assignment for all xml:id attributes as required by xml:id 1.0 by setting their attribute type Infoset property to type ID"
Issue 8.13
Section 6 is a start...
[Break for lunch]
http://www.w3.org/XML/Activity
<MoZ> http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/10/xproc-charter
Our charter ends the end of this coming January. We need to decide if we will recharter or just extend.
3 things left from Jim's list
The abstract says each profile defines a data model, but that isn't really true. We should consider rewording that.
The profile determines properties that are available from which to determine a data model.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry -- the abstract (and any paragraph in the Background that is almost a copy of it) needs to be rewritten. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action16]
We find that the spec uses the term data model all over the place and perhaps in a fashion that will be confusing to people.
Jim's terminology section should define the term, though Alex suggests perhaps we use a different word in most cases.
<scribe> ACTION: Alex to sketch out by tomorrow morning if possible how we should address the "data model" terminology in the spec. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action17]
Perhaps we should add some words to explain why we picked each of the 4 profiles we did and admit that there could be lots more so that our choice was somewhat arbitrary although still, we hope, useful.
For example, we believe all browsers implement (at least) basic and not all browser implement any of the larger profiles.
Our profiles were based on sets of available properties, not on things like streaming or not or dynamic manipulation or not.
<scribe> ACTION: Jim to suggest a short rationale for our picking each of our profiles. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action18]
Hey HENRY: what does "faithful provision" mean?
<ht> Where?
In section 2 all over
<ht> It means that whatever gets put in a data model does actually (enable itself to) reconstruct the information defined by the relevant infoset property
ht: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html#profiles
<ht> So, e.g., if the parser builds a datamodel that doesn't actually discriminate between NMTOKEN and ID is not 'faithfully provisioning' wrt the attribute type
<ht> property
I don't think I understand that use of the word "provision". Can you give me a synonym?
<ht> 'install'
<ht> 'install in'
for 8.15, we will accept Michael's suggested fix and let the editor massage as necessary.
for 8.17, Alex suggests we add a short sentence or two about each of xml:id, xml:base, and xinclude to section 2 (perhaps just the intro to 2 or maybe a new subsection).
[and the WG agrees]
<scribe> ACTION: Murray to suggest the wording to add about xml:id, xml:base, and xinclude. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action19]
For 8.18, these are all editorial, and we are leaving their resolution to Jim and Norm.
And that takes us to the end of LC comments.
Section 4.2.3, Vojtech questions whether "Unexpanded Entity Reference Information Items" should be in there at all because he doesn't think there is any difference.
Also in section 4, we note that all those "Entirely, for the same reason" are still confusing and need to be spelled out or something.
We believe (though we're not positive) that "Unexpanded Entity Reference Information Items" has to be the same for the "external declaration" profile and the full profile.
We aren't sure that we understand what happens for Unexpanded Entity Reference Information Items for either profile, so we need to re-discuss this with HST.
Vojtech has some editorial comments that he will pass on to Jim.
<alexmilowski> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/xproc-candidate-issues/
open issues against XProc itself which we need to sort into Vnext requests and potential errata.
issue 001 to be filed under Vnext.
Issues 002 and 003 are closed.
Issue 004 is for V.next.
Issue 005 is about conformance for the xproc (and Vojtech's comment here is about the profile spec), so this goes into the errata pile.
Issue 006 is for V.next.
We believe that issue 007 is a bug in Calabash.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to check and confirm that issue 007 is a bug in Calabash. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action20]
Issue 008 is an erratum.
Issue 009 is asking that the xproc schema be updated to include p:template, but p:template is not part of V1, so we wonder if we can change the schema. Paul doubts it, but thinks that we could add such a schema to the p:template note. We should discuss this with Norm and Henry too, but we are leaning toward adding the augmented schema to the note.
MoZ says that implementors cannot add something in the p namespace, so they cannot use p:template with the official xproc schema.
Leaving Issue 009 open for discussion.
At least most of Issue 010 is V.next. But there is one thing that Norm says "I'll put that on the bug list" and we're not sure what that is, so:
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to Look at issue 010 and determine what aspect of it is a bug and report back. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action21]
[break until 15:45]
<alexmilowski> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/20-minutes.html#item05
Issue 013 was discussed in the minutes Alex just posted above.
Norm was given an action to write a proposal for V.next.
And Alex has an action on this issue to do some more research.
Issue 014 is an erratum. It requires some clarification in the spec as outlined in Vojtech's email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2011Oct/0006.
Issue 015 is V.next unless Norm says it's just closable.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to confirm Issue 015 is V.next unless Norm says it's just closable. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action22]
Same with Issue 016--V.next with Norm to confirm.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to confirm Issue 016 is V.next unless Norm says it's just closable. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action23]
Issue 017 is V.next.
We believe issue 018 is just fyi and is neither an erratum or A v.next request, so we will just close it. action to Norm to confirm.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to confirm Issue 018 can be closed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action24]
Issues 019 through 024 are already closed.
Issue 025 is an erratum. We should clarify that xslt match patterns are evaluated using the Step xpath context.
<scribe> ACTION: Editor (Norm) to clarify that xslt match patterns are evaluated using the step xpath context (to close 025). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action25]
<scribe> ACTION: Editor (Norm) to clarify that what Norm asked about is conformant to close 014. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action26]
<scribe> ACTION: Editor (Norm) to correct the obvious bug outlined in issue 008. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action27]
Regarding 009, Paul suggests that we can add to the p:template WG Note an augmented schema, but we can't pretend that the augmented schema is the official 1.0 one.
<scribe> ACTION: Jim to create the augmented schema (that includes p:template) and augment the WG Note to point to the augmented schema, so we can close 009 as neither errata nor V.next (though we'll probably put p:template into V.next) and just address it with a Second Edition of the WG Note. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action28]
That leaves us with 005 on the conformance section of the xproc spec at http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#conformance
<scribe> ACTION: Jim to give a try to finding all conformance statements throughout the spec and putting references to them in the conformance section to address issue 005. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/31-minutes.html#action29]
meeting adjourned 16:49 local time until 9:00 tomorrow.