W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > March 2012

XProc Minutes: 15 Mar 2012

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:55:25 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2mx7a83ea.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes

[1]W3C

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 210, 15 Mar 2012

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Norm, Alex, Murray, Henry

   Regrets
           Cornelia, Mohamed

   Chair
           Norm

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 22 March 2012
         4. [8]Review of open action items
         5. [9]Review of last call processor profile comments.
         6. [10]Michael also makes a bunch of editorial suggestions.
         7. [11]Progress on requirements/use cases
         8. [12]Any other business?

     * [13]Summary of Action Items

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Accept this agenda?

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-agenda

   Accepted.

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes

   Accepted.

  Next meeting: telcon, 22 March 2012

   No regrets heard.

  Review of open action items

   A-206-02: continued

   A-207-01: completed. there's only one comment

   A-207-02: continued

   A-209-01: continued, ETA 29 Mar

  Review of last call processor profile comments.

   Norm: We only have one, from cmsmcq.

   ->
   [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2012Jan/0000.html

   Norm: Two substantive issues, standalone and validation.
   ... What about standalone?
   ... What are the cases?
   ... No external decls, it's irrelevant
   ... External decls, standalone=no, (the default) that's a validity
   constraint
   ... External decls, standalone=yes, then what we do is ok.

   Henry: Perhaps we should ask Michael if he made the same mistake that I
   did, that standalone=no does not require a processor to read the external
   declarations.
   ... We should also see if he made it more clear in his previous comments
   what he wanted.

   ->
   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2011Apr/0003.html

   Norm: Looking at Michael's comments, I think he has misinterpreted the
   spec.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to respond to Micheal and see if we can come to the
   same place. [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

   Alex: Reading Micheal's original comment, I think there are two
   interpretations. One is that these are things he thinks the XML Rec says
   and one is that these are the things he would like *us* to say.

   Norm: You think perhaps Micheal is saying that *we* should enforce this
   behavior wrt to standalone.
   ... The second issue he raises is validation, which he at least agrees we
   improved.
   ... I think Micheal makes a good point that it would be easy to read this
   spec and missunderstand that validation is forbidden.
   ... I wonder if we could improve things by mentioning validation in 2.3
   and 2.4
   ... We could say in point 1 "non-validating or non-valdating"

   Henry: We could add a note that says "this requirement is satisfied by any
   conformant validating parser"

   Murray returns the discussion to standalone with the observation that the
   XML spec says there's an algorithm for turning standalone=no into
   standalone=yes

   Some discussion of how "algorithm" is to be interpreted; does a validating
   parser suffice?

   Norm: I'm not sure a validating parser covers the case of an invalid but
   well-formed document with standalone=no

   Henry: I think my problem with the standalone declaration is that it's a
   significant increase in complexity for an area that's very little used.

   Alex: What would standalone help us with?

   Norm: I'm not sure what Micheal meant, so I'm not sure how to answer that.
   ... In the basic and id profiles, standalone is irrelevant becase we don't
   read the external decls and it's a validity constraint and a validating
   parser can't be used to do the first two profiles.

   Murray: I think what Michael is saying is what I've been saying,
   validatity and standalone=no are things that would change the result of
   processing.
   ... If you have a document that requires validation and/or requires
   fetching external subsets is going to result in a different document.
   ... And the truth value of that document changes depending on whether you
   validate or not.

   Henry: That's why we put in the stuff about invariants, so we could be
   very clear that what you get may change.
   ... Maybe we should make it clear that a validating processor cannot
   implement 2.1 and 2.2 if the documents have an external subset.
   ... Validating parsers *must* read the external subset.

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry to draft notes for 2.1 and 2.2 saying that a
   validating parser cannot be used if there's an external subset and to say
   in 2.3 and 2.4 explicitly that validation could be performed [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action02]

   Norm: Murray, what do you want to say about a standalone=no document with
   external decls if it's parsed by a basic or id processor.

   Murray: I think I just want to say that you may have lost information.

   Norm: I have no objection to adding a note to that effect, I just don't
   think changing behavior is within our remit.

   Murray: I still think there should be a profile that takes in an XML
   document which was composed with a notion that it would be validated.
   ... so it's truth value would be determined by that profile.
   ... But the WG doesn't agree with that position, that's fine. I think that
   Michael feels the same way. I think the amelioriting text will help.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to draft notes for 2.1 and 2.2 to describe the
   consequences of information loss for a standalone=no document when it has
   external declarations. [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action03]

   Murray: What would be most satisfying to me is that if we had a profile
   that covered validation and then if we deprecated it in V.next.

   Henry: I think we're doing better than that. The external declarations
   profile gives you the infoset you want, whether or not its validated, and
   then you can decide independently to validate it.

   Norm: Perhaps a note to that effect in 2.3 would be a good idea.

   Henry: In section 3, for class Extended perhaps we should say explicitly
   that may be absent under 2.1 and 2.2.

  Michael also makes a bunch of editorial suggestions.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm or Henry to implement Micheal's editorial changes,
   raising any issues we see, if any. [recorded in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action04]

  Progress on requirements/use cases

   Norm: Murray are you interested in working on the use cases and
   requirements.

   Murray: Yes. I was talking to Alex, and I think we might work on it
   together.

   Alex: Yep.

   Norm: Excellent.
   ... Proposed ETA?
   ... How about 12 April?

  Any other business?

   None heard.

   Adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to draft notes for 2.1 and 2.2 saying that a
   validating parser cannot be used if there's an external subset and to say
   in 2.3 and 2.4 explicitly that validation could be performed [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm or Henry to implement Micheal's editorial changes,
   raising any issues we see, if any. [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action04]
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to draft notes for 2.1 and 2.2 to describe the
   consequences of information loss for a standalone=no document when it has
   external declarations. [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to respond to Micheal and see if we can come to the
   same place. [recorded in
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [26]scribe.perl version 1.136 ([27]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2012/03/21 13:53:39 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item08
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#ActionSummary
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-agenda
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes
  16. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2012Jan/0000.html
  17. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2011Apr/0003.html
  18. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  19. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  20. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action03
  21. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action04
  22. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  23. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action04
  24. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action03
  25. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  26. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  27. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 13:55:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 March 2012 13:55:57 GMT