W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > June 2010

XProc Minutes 10 June 2010

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:19:49 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2d3vx5qcq.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/10-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 173, 10 Jun 2010


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Norm, Paul, Henry, Murray, Vojtech, Alex





     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 17 June 2010?
         4. [8]Comments on XML processor profiles
         5. [9]Comment 1, whitespace
         6. [10]3 XML Base
         7. [11]Any other business?

     * [12]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/10-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/05/27-minutes


  Next meeting: telcon, 17 June 2010?

   No regrets heard.

  Comments on XML processor profiles

   -> [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/05/wd-comments/

  Comment 1, whitespace

   Alex reports on his action to investigate Webkit


   Norm: So webkit ignores "element content whitespace", that is, reports all


   Henry: I sent email to Richard and DV, asking what their parsers did and
   what they thought of the issue.
   ... Richard's reply was consistent with what we said: there's nothing to
   stop a non-validating parser reporting correct values for "element content
   ... but RXP does not do so.

   Norm: So the evidence we have gathered so far suggests that in practice if
   you aren't validating you don't get information about "element content

   Alex: If this is the basic profile, why would it hurt to say that all
   whitespace is preserved?

   Murray: Let's assume that there was a profile that included validation.
   Couldn't we then say for each profile, these are the infoset items we
   expect to be reported by running this process.
   ... And make a note that distinguishes which ones are different.

   Henry: I think what we want to say is, for each profile that we define,
   you can count on the presence and values of all of the following infoset
   ... And that it must be the case that the presence and values will be
   identical across any processor that supports this profile.
   ... but you can't depend on anything about properties that aren't in this

   Murray: I don't think we'd want to allow the "A" profile to add stuff
   that's in the "B" profile. You can't mix and match.

   Henry: Validation is special, but I think we can fix that.

   Norm: But the properties are not all independent. Validation requires
   element content whitespace for example.

   Alex: Can't we have two "bases" to our layer cake, so it's really a kind
   of matrix?
   ... in one case the validation was performed before hand, by some magic,
   and in another case perhaps we require the validation to be done.

   Murray: My feeling is that we should be starting with full validation,
   then lowering the bar.

   Norm: In 2010, I don't want to encourage validation with DTDs and nothing
   we're saying has anything to do with schema validation.

   Alex: Our minimum profile is matching pretty nicely with what browsers do.

   Norm: But we require the processor to read external markup declarations.

   Alex: I didn't say it was perfect, but we could fix that.

   Henry: I was resistant. There's no reason to set a non-bar.

   Murray: I don't know what that means.

   Henry: I don't think we need a profile that doesn't set the bar higher
   than "do what the XML rec says".
   ... Until and unless we settle the question about whether we're setting
   lower bounds or stronger invariants, I don't think that argument goes

   Some discussion of external subsets and browser parsers.

   Murray: I thought we were going to try to address reality by naming the

   Henry: Overal, this spec is like the infoset spec, it defines choices with
   names which allow other specs to make determinate choices and save
   themselves settling all these issues over and over again.
   ... And as such we thought the inventory of profiles we'd define are the
   ones we thought other W3C specs would want to use.
   ... So there's a little bit of circularity there, by calling the minimum
   profile what we have, we're saying this is what the minimum should be.
   ... Maybe that's not an appropriate goal for this exercise.

   Alex: I think we should try to align with current/future expectations of
   what the browsers are going to do with XML.

   Murray: I think we might want to deprecate the profile we think is too

   Henry: Or at least a health warning.
   ... I suggest we add a profile that only requires XML base and to also see
   if we can find a form of words along the lines that Murray suggested that
   talks about infoset properties and describes what's gauranteed for each
   ... I'm less clear of what to say about validation, but I think it might
   just fall out of the exercise.

   Murray: It's not the validation part that's problematic for me, it's the
   changes to the infoset.

   Henry: So consider two different ways of stating the invariant wrt white
   ... 1. two processors which implement these profiles cannot be counted on
   to provide the same values in all circumstances for the element content
   whitespace property for characters
   ... 2 and only in a putative fourth profile will the results be the same

   Murray: Can we create a "hello world" document that demonstrates the
   differences between these profiles?

   Henry: If we go in the direction I suggested, then we'd only show the
   properties that you can be sure will be the same.

   Murray: If we expressed these differences in RDF, that would capture the
   attention of some more people.

  3 XML Base

   Murray: I think he's saying XInclude covers it

   Henry: But it doesn't! If there are no XInclude elements in the document
   then XInclude doesn't tell you anything.

   Murray: I thought that one was really simple

   Norm: Can you try to follow-up, Murray?

   Murray: Sure.

  Any other business?

   None heard.


Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([19]CVS
    $Date: 2010/06/11 19:18:11 $


   Visible links
   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/10-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2010/06/10-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/10-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/10-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/10-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/10-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/10-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/10-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/10-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/10-minutes#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/10-minutes#ActionSummary
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/10-agenda
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/05/27-minutes
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/05/wd-comments/
  16. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Jun/0003.html
  17. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jun/0003.html
  18. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  19. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 19:20:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:48 UTC