13:51:22 RRSAgent has joined #ixml 13:51:26 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/09/05-ixml-irc 13:51:54 Meeting: ixml group teleconference 13:51:56 norm has joined #ixml 13:52:04 norm has changed the topic to: Invisible XML 13:52:20 Date: 5 September 2023 13:52:30 Chair: Steven 13:55:43 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/07/25-ixml-minutes 13:55:51 (I think) 13:56:22 john has joined #ixml 14:07:25 Scribe: norm 14:07:33 Topic: Discussion of Steven's renaming proposal. 14:07:56 Steven: In brief, you can say "identifier>name" to change "identifer" into "name" in the serialized form. 14:08:35 In the grammar, you refer to the identifier, not the name. 14:08:39 Norm: And I've implemented it. 14:09:33 John: Can we wait until I've had a chance to try implementing it? 14:09:40 Michael: Ok, let's wait and then bless it next time. 14:10:03 Steven: I want to come back to the topic of round tripping, which is certainly made more interesting by this proposal. 14:11:53 Topic: Next meeting 14:12:13 Cancel 19 September, next meeting is 3 October 2023. 14:13:32 Topic: Refer to control characters by class 14:13:47 Norm: This is PR #193 14:15:24 Michael: That leads me to a follow-on question, since conforming behavior depends on what version of Unicode it supports, should there be a statement somewhere that says a claim of conformance needs to contain what version of Unicode is supported. 14:15:50 Norm: Yes, we could say the version of Unicode is "implementation defined", obligating the implementor to define it. 14:16:16 ACTION: Michael to open "version of Unicode" as an issue. 14:16:53 Michael: We probably want a checklist for implementors so they know what they need to define. 14:17:12 cmsmcq has joined #ixml 14:17:19 Accept PR 193 14:17:22 ACTION: Norm to merge PR 193 14:18:17 Topic: Fix typo in ABNF grammar (PR #195) 14:18:21 Norm: These are easy. 14:18:30 John: Do we say that our identifiers are case *sensitive*? 14:18:55 ACTION: Michael to raise an issue about making the case-sensitivity of iXML names explicit 14:20:50 Proposal to accept PR 195 14:20:52 Accepted. 14:20:57 ACTION: Norm to merge PR #195 14:22:19 Topic: ABNF sample grammar that incorporates errata (PR #196) 14:22:41 Accepted. 14:23:09 Topic: Proposal for options, environment, and dependencies 14:23:18 This is PR #173 14:23:39 Michael: This is for identifying things like the Unicode version in the test suite. 14:24:12 Accepted 14:24:18 ACTION: Norm to merge PR #173 14:24:26 ACTION: Michael to update (some of) the test drivers 14:24:33 ACTION: John to implement the renaming proposal 14:25:42 Topic: Grammar composition 14:26:35 John: See https://github.com/invisibleXML/ixml/blob/master/misc/grammar-combination-notes.md 14:27:06 John walks us through the document 14:28:22 John: There are two parts: what are you combining and how. This could be done in XML (but not iXML text) or in both. 14:29:45 John: For referencing, we could have a URI reference to the grammar file. Or, like XSLT packages, it could be done by reference to names and versions defined some other way. 14:30:08 ... In the case of XSLT packages, the expectation is that packages will evolve through versions so it seems worthwhile. 14:30:32 ... Less clear that it's worthwhile for grammars. I suggest we go the URI reference route. 14:31:32 John: The next question is, what rules do you want to combine? 14:32:17 ... There are a bunch of options in the use cases document. 14:33:34 John: Let's hypothesize an iXML grammar for these things 14:34:43 (See the grammar in the document) 14:35:50 John outlines the rules for what to accept. 14:36:53 Michael: If I say "accept month" I think you're saying I want months as they're defined in that grammar over there. 14:37:11 ... But if there are other nonterminals reachable from month, are they imported in a way that means I can refer to them, or are they invisible? 14:37:23 John: That's an open question. 14:38:42 Steven: My feeling is that for managable grammars, the grammar maker wants to say "you can use this and this" but not everything. 14:39:22 John: The next question is one of renaming while importing. 14:40:12 ... You might need to do bulk renaming. 14:40:52 John: The final bit is the whole issue of overriding. 14:41:52 ... There are two ways of thinking about it: in the declaration, we say this is overridden and the declaration is below, or we could say "here is the overriding definition" 14:42:27 ... Then there are edge cases: is it an error to override a rule that isn't in the grammar? 14:42:56 John: We could say, you can override everything. 14:43:48 John: Then there's the question of wanting to override rules as they're being imported. 14:45:32 John: We could even provide a mechanism for referring to the original rule. Something like `$original`. 14:46:27 John: I've implemented some of these things. 14:46:59 John: I thought maybe we could get away without having to deal with visibility, but I think that's probably not possible. 14:47:33 Norm: Thanks, John. This is a great exploration of the space. I think what I'd like to see is a concrete proposal for the smallest practical set of features and see how it covers the use cases. Not a maximal proposal that implments everything, but the smallest thing. 14:47:50 Steven: In some sense, I feel a little difficult about making alterations to something you've imported. 14:48:31 ... Importing a program library often involves importing a couple of top-level functions, but not the ability to change things "under the hood" 14:49:39 ... It would be nice if the way we define it doesn't compell you to do it one way or another. 14:50:08 Norm: Yes, I think we need to describe the process at a level above the syntax. 14:51:02 Michael: What worries me is that there are use cases where you want to import a start symbol and have all the internals be a black box. But if we want to define a composite grammar, we won't find anything in current grammar theory that guides us. 14:51:37 ... There are use cases where that is going to be what you want, but in practice, you are going to get cases where people want to make exceptions. 14:52:04 ... I'd like to be able to support both a black box and a whilte box. 14:52:20 Steven: Isn't the white box case just copy-and-paste? 14:53:18 Michael: I'd like to be able to do something that has that effect but allows me to maintain more modularity. Having 17 copies of it is going to be problematic. 14:53:56 Topic: Any other business? 14:54:23 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:54:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/05-ixml-minutes.html norm 14:57:13 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 14:57:23 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:57:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/05-ixml-minutes.html norm 14:57:43 Present: Steven, Norm, John, Bethan, Michael 14:57:46 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:57:47 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/05-ixml-minutes.html norm 16:53:41 cmsmcq has joined #ixml