IRC log of xproc on 2008-01-31
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:27:41 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #xproc
- 15:27:41 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-xproc-irc
- 15:27:44 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #xproc
- 15:27:47 [Norm]
- Zakim, this will be xproc
- 15:27:47 [Zakim]
- ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 33 minutes
- 15:28:10 [Norm]
- Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
- 15:28:10 [Norm]
- Date: 31 January 2008
- 15:28:10 [Norm]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/31-agenda
- 15:28:10 [Norm]
- Meeting: 100
- 15:28:10 [Norm]
- Chair: Norm
- 15:28:11 [Norm]
- Scribe: Norm
- 15:28:13 [Norm]
- ScribeNick: Norm
- 15:29:12 [MoZ]
- MoZ has joined #xproc
- 15:56:20 [alexmilowski]
- alexmilowski has joined #xproc
- 15:58:03 [PGrosso]
- PGrosso has joined #xproc
- 15:59:22 [Zakim]
- XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
- 15:59:29 [Zakim]
- +alexmilowski
- 15:59:37 [ruilopes]
- ruilopes has joined #xproc
- 15:59:49 [alexmilowski]
- Got here first. I get a sticker.
- 16:00:03 [alexmilowski]
- (on the call that is)
- 16:00:22 [Zakim]
- +[ArborText]
- 16:00:29 [avernet]
- avernet has joined #xproc
- 16:00:29 [Zakim]
- +??P4
- 16:00:34 [ruilopes]
- Zakim, ? is me
- 16:00:34 [Zakim]
- +ruilopes; got it
- 16:01:41 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 16:01:43 [Norm]
- Zakim, who's on the phone?
- 16:01:43 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see alexmilowski, PGrosso, ruilopes, [IPcaller]
- 16:01:45 [Zakim]
- +Norm
- 16:01:48 [avernet]
- zakim, [ is avernet
- 16:01:48 [Zakim]
- +avernet; got it
- 16:02:38 [ht]
- zakim, please call ht-781
- 16:02:38 [Zakim]
- ok, ht; the call is being made
- 16:02:40 [Zakim]
- +Ht
- 16:03:42 [richard]
- richard has joined #xproc
- 16:04:04 [Zakim]
- +??P16
- 16:04:08 [richard]
- zakim, ? is me
- 16:04:08 [Zakim]
- +richard; got it
- 16:04:51 [Norm]
- Zakim, who's on the phone?
- 16:04:51 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see alexmilowski, PGrosso, ruilopes, avernet, Norm, Ht, richard
- 16:05:14 [Norm]
- Present: Alex, Paul, Rui, Alessandro, Norm, Henry, Richard
- 16:05:27 [Norm]
- Topic: Accept this agenda?
- 16:05:27 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/31-agenda
- 16:05:31 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 16:05:40 [Norm]
- Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
- 16:05:40 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/24-minutes
- 16:05:44 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 16:05:51 [Norm]
- Topic: Next meeting: telcon 7 February 2008?
- 16:06:01 [Norm]
- No regrets given
- 16:06:11 [Norm]
- Topic: Last Call Comments
- 16:06:18 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments.html
- 16:06:36 [Norm]
- Comment 100: cherry picked items
- 16:07:25 [Norm]
- Alex: It'd be nice, but there's no standard serialization spec for it
- 16:07:28 [Norm]
- s/spec/control/
- 16:07:36 [Norm]
- Henry: Why?
- 16:07:40 [Norm]
- Alex: XQuery doesn't have it.
- 16:08:07 [MoZ]
- Zakim, what is the code ?
- 16:08:07 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
- 16:08:15 [Norm]
- Norm: I don't have any recollection of a technical reason why it wasn't part of serialization.
- 16:08:44 [Norm]
- Present: +Mohamed
- 16:08:46 [Zakim]
- +MoZ
- 16:10:06 [Norm]
- NOTE TO SCRIBE add what issue this is before the discussion
- 16:10:16 [Norm]
- Alex: I don't see anything in the serialization spec about excluding prefixes.
- 16:11:17 [Norm]
- Norm: Clearly it can be done, do we want to do this in XProc 1.0?
- 16:11:26 [Norm]
- Alex: It's critical if you want to send the output to IE?
- 16:11:30 [Norm]
- s/IE?/IE./
- 16:11:41 [Norm]
- Alex: But implementors could do this outside of the spec.
- 16:12:31 [Norm]
- Norm: We could let implementors do this as an extension.
- 16:13:22 [Norm]
- Alex: It doesn't even have to be an extension in the pipeline; it could be in how you run the processor.
- 16:13:35 [Norm]
- Henry: Gee, this is on the margins.
- 16:13:53 [Norm]
- ...Fussing with namespaces and serialization is something on which one can waste arbitrary amounts of time.
- 16:14:05 [Norm]
- Alex: Implementors have lots of ways, it's a question of whether we make it a requirement.
- 16:14:18 [Norm]
- Henry: With my implementors hat on, I'd sort of rather not...
- 16:15:08 [Norm]
- Alex: Wouldn't an XSLT step at the end of the pipeline do it?
- 16:15:10 [Norm]
- Norm: I'm not sure.
- 16:15:31 [Zakim]
- -ruilopes
- 16:15:39 [Norm]
- Richard: I'm not sure I understand the issue.
- 16:16:11 [Zakim]
- +??P4
- 16:16:17 [ruilopes]
- Zakim, ? is me
- 16:16:17 [Zakim]
- +ruilopes; got it
- 16:16:59 [Norm]
- Richard: In XSLT, exclude-result-prefixes is only about literal result elements in the stylesheet.
- 16:17:22 [Norm]
- Norm: Ok, so is there anything comparable?
- 16:17:40 [Norm]
- Ricahrd: If the pipeline itself binds some prefixes, then they're in scope for literal elements in it.
- 16:18:02 [Norm]
- Henry: Like an inline document.
- 16:18:45 [Norm]
- Some discussion of what the namespace bindings are for an inline document
- 16:19:31 [Norm]
- Alex: You could do this with a new step.
- 16:20:41 [Norm]
- Norm: I don't think we want to add this to serialization and I don't thnk we need to do it for any other reason.
- 16:21:00 [Norm]
- Henry: Someone is free to create a simplify-namespace step and we can adopt it for V.next if it's widely supported.
- 16:21:20 [Norm]
- Proposed: No, we aren't going to add anything for exclude-prefixes
- 16:21:22 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 16:21:37 [Norm]
- Next up, should the 'path' attribute on p:directory-list be renamed?
- 16:22:44 [AndrewF]
- AndrewF has joined #xproc
- 16:23:33 [Norm]
- Richard: If I were renaming this, I'd probably call it something like 'directory-name'
- 16:23:42 [Zakim]
- +??P22
- 16:23:47 [AndrewF]
- zakim, ? is Andrew
- 16:23:47 [Zakim]
- +Andrew; got it
- 16:24:10 [MoZ]
- uri-prefix
- 16:24:14 [Norm]
- Norm: Nikolay followed-up proposing just "uri" on the basis that it might support ftp:, jar:, file:, etc.
- 16:24:21 [Norm]
- ...On that basis, I think I'd rather not change it.
- 16:25:22 [MoZ]
- what about location ?
- 16:25:48 [Norm]
- Norm: Most implementations are only going to support file: URIs on the local host, so "path" makes some sense.
- 16:25:56 [Norm]
- Alex: Location?
- 16:26:09 [Norm]
- Richard: None of these is obviously better than "path".
- 16:26:14 [Norm]
- Proposal: No change.
- 16:26:23 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 16:26:43 [Norm]
- Adding a scheme to p:label-elements that generates an ID from an XPath
- 16:27:45 [Norm]
- Alex: That would require another option
- 16:29:20 [Norm]
- Some discussion
- 16:29:35 [Norm]
- Richard: I've found that you often want to combine all sorts of possibilities.
- 16:29:59 [Norm]
- ...for example, an XPath that gives you the count. I did it with a C-like format-string. It gets passed the prefix, suffix, and label.
- 16:32:03 [Norm]
- Some discussion of the possibilities
- 16:32:12 [Zakim]
- -ruilopes
- 16:32:33 [Norm]
- Richard: If prefix/suffix can be XPaths then in the XPath case you can just say that the label is '' so that you just get the concatenation of prefix and suffix.
- 16:34:43 [Norm]
- Henry: We can always use an XPath and just require implementors to short-cut the simple case.
- 16:34:59 [Norm]
- Alex: I think I'm with Henry, we take three options and we make them into one.
- 16:35:07 [Zakim]
- +??P0
- 16:35:12 [ruilopes]
- Zakim, ? is me
- 16:35:12 [Zakim]
- +ruilopes; got it
- 16:35:19 [ht]
- pp:count-elements()
- 16:36:09 [ht]
- It's nice that Alex likes my proposal, I like his
- 16:36:11 [Norm]
- Norm boggles at a step-local function.
- 16:36:17 [ht]
- Use a variable
- 16:36:28 [Norm]
- Richard: I think it's entirely reasonable for steps to have local functions.
- 16:37:32 [Norm]
- Henry: I like adding a variable. I like saying impl's must bind $p:index to a value for the evaluation of this expression.
- 16:38:06 [Norm]
- Norm boggles harder
- 16:38:28 [Norm]
- Richard: To say this adds something is no more true than saying that XSLT adds a bunch of stuff.
- 16:38:49 [Norm]
- ...From the pipeline perspective, it's just a string. The label-elements step is the one doing the evaulation.
- 16:39:17 [Norm]
- Norm: I think we've drifted far enough that we need a proposal.
- 16:39:23 [Norm]
- ACTION: Alex to draft a proposal for this change.
- 16:39:54 [Norm]
- Comment 102: Default bindings for non-primary inputs
- 16:40:27 [ht]
- HST believes the proposal is to replace 'prefix', 'suffix' and 'scheme' with 'label', with default value concat('_',$p:index)
- 16:40:28 [Zakim]
- -ruilopes
- 16:40:44 [Norm]
- Norm tries to describe the proposal
- 16:41:03 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 16:41:09 [ruilopes]
- Zakim, [ is me
- 16:41:09 [Zakim]
- +ruilopes; got it
- 16:41:42 [Norm]
- Alex: That is weird. That's not what you want in most cases.
- 16:42:24 [Norm]
- Proposal: Remove default bindings for non-primary inputs
- 16:42:31 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 16:42:56 [Norm]
- Comments 107: Options in XSLT match patterns
- 16:45:39 [Norm]
- Henry: If 2.8.1 doesn't apply, then don't we need to say something similar
- 16:46:09 [Norm]
- The question of whether prefix is in-scope or not is open
- 16:47:29 [Norm]
- Or maybe it isn't
- 16:48:17 [Norm]
- Mohamed: Can we say that XSLT match pattern in XProc doesn't allow variable references, even if it's in XSLT2.
- 16:48:31 [Norm]
- ...We leave it for V.next to say how we do this.
- 16:48:46 [Zakim]
- -ruilopes
- 16:49:27 [Zakim]
- +??P0
- 16:49:34 [ruilopes]
- Zakim, ? is me
- 16:49:34 [Zakim]
- +ruilopes; got it
- 16:50:46 [Norm]
- Henry: Section 2.8.2 says explicitly that there aren't any variables in steps.
- 16:50:54 [Norm]
- Henry: We can close this issue by saying, 'use select'.
- 16:53:40 [Norm]
- Richard: I'm now a bit confused by this description of the XPath context
- 16:55:12 [ht]
- 5.7.1.3 introduces 'select' and 'value' and explains that in-scope options are available for access by variable references
- 16:55:17 [Norm]
- Richard: What 2.8.2 should say is "except when otherwise specified by the step documentation"
- 16:56:34 [ht]
- s/references/references in 'select' expressions/
- 16:57:32 [ht]
- 5.7.1.3 should point out that per 2.8.2 if a option 'value' is used as an XPath, those bindings will _not_ be available
- 16:57:39 [Norm]
- Richard: In fact, almost all these things do say "unless otherwise specified by the step"
- 16:58:18 [Norm]
- Norm: Editorial carelessness
- 16:59:00 [Norm]
- Richard: In fact, the XPath 2 case says that, we just need to fix the XPath 1 case.
- 17:00:11 [Norm]
- Henry: We should be clear in 5.7.1.3 about the value case and point to 2.8.2 from there.
- 17:02:21 [Norm]
- Topic: Any other business
- 17:02:37 [Norm]
- None.
- 17:02:40 [Norm]
- Adjourned.
- 17:02:43 [Zakim]
- -Ht
- 17:02:44 [Zakim]
- -PGrosso
- 17:02:45 [Zakim]
- -ruilopes
- 17:02:46 [Zakim]
- -Norm
- 17:02:47 [Zakim]
- -alexmilowski
- 17:02:49 [Zakim]
- -MoZ
- 17:02:51 [Zakim]
- -Andrew
- 17:02:52 [Norm]
- RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
- 17:02:53 [Zakim]
- -avernet
- 17:02:54 [Zakim]
- -richard
- 17:02:55 [Zakim]
- XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
- 17:02:56 [Zakim]
- Attendees were alexmilowski, PGrosso, ruilopes, [IPcaller], Norm, avernet, Ht, richard, MoZ, Andrew
- 17:02:56 [Norm]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 17:02:56 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-xproc-minutes.html Norm
- 17:03:00 [PGrosso]
- PGrosso has left #xproc
- 18:57:26 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #xproc