- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:20:13 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2d4coqe6q.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 137, 26 Feb 2009
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Paul, Vojtech, Alex, Mohamed, Henry
Regrets
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 5 Mar 2009?
4. [8]Review of CR comments
5. [9]089: conflicting content-type for body parts
6. [10]090 p:hash and xml:base
7. [11]091: duplication of information in c:multipart
8. [12]092: p:http-request error content
9. [13]093: p:http-request: status message
10. [14]094: p:http-request content-type and encoding
11. [15]Any other business?
* [16]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [17]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [18]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting: telcon 5 Mar 2009?
No regrets heard.
Looking forward, Norm is likely to give regrets for 19 Mar and 2 Apr, so
maybe Henry can chair?
Review of CR comments
-> [19]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/
089: conflicting content-type for body parts
Vojtech: This happens in two parts, both when you're constructing a
request and when you're processing a response.
Some discussion
Alex: This is more complicated becuase there can be encodings and such in
the header value.
Vojtech: Right. Do we ignore one, or merge them which would be too
complicated, or what?
Alex: We do have encoding, and encoding is going to effect the content
types of each of the bodies sent. So you should have a charset parameter
on the content types.
... And if you specify a different charaset parameter explicitly, then
that can be a problem too.
... I think the right way to look at this is that the computed values
should match.
... We need to reword XC0020 to cover that case.
Norm: Two things: one is the logic for computing the content type, the
other is what to do with the header values.
Alex: I think it's a potentially slippery slope, there are lots of things
in HTTP that can be confusing.
Norm: Alex, can you take a stab at some prose to discuss this?
Alex: Absolutely.
<scribe> ACTION: Alex to describe how content type values are computed.
[recorded in [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Norm: For the error, I thought I heard that if you specify both
content-type on the body and an explicit c:header for the Content-Type
header, then the computed value MUST exactly match the specified c:header
value, or that's an error.
Alex: Yes.
Accepted.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to add text about the error case after we have
wording from Alex [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
090 p:hash and xml:base
Norm: I couldn't find it in the minutes, but I think we decided to allow
it, even if it's probably stupid.
Vojtech: Right.
Accepted.
091: duplication of information in c:multipart
Some discussion
Norm: Vojtech: you can do it any way. If you specify the multipart in the
pipeline you can do this.
Alex: This is about the request, yes?
Vojtech: I think it's about both.
Alex: If you put a content-type attribute in there with a boundary
parameter and specify a boundary, then that's going to be a conflict. I
think we should say the same thing we said for 089 about computed values.
Norm: We could also say that the content-type attribute should be the bare
value without parameters.
Some more discussion about the value of the boundary attribute.
Alex: The boundary attribute is required. Eew.
Norm: I think removing it would force us back to Last Call.
Alex: So we can just say they have to be the same, and use XC0020.
Norm: Why not forbid it?
Alex: Because of the round-tripping case.
Norm: So the proposal I hear is that we say that if you specify them both,
they MUST match.
Accepted.
Vojtech: So the remainder of the question, when you parse the response, do
you generate the headers?
... I think you do generate them, but the values will always match so it's
ok.
Norm: Yes, I think you generate the headers.
092: p:http-request error content
Alex: This one is easy, you get back the content. 404 is just like any
other response.
Norm: Yep.
Vojtech: I think so too.
Proposal: Close w/o action.
Accepted.
093: p:http-request: status message
Alex: That seems like a nice to have.
... I don't think it's something we need to do for V1.
Proposal: Not in V1.
Accepted.
094: p:http-request content-type and encoding
Alex: Right now you get an error. The encoding parameter on p:http-request
applies to all of the parts.
Some discussion
Henry observes that we can say "don't do this". The only way you could get
here is fi you had two documents and wanted to encode them differently.
Alex: Does the encoding serialization parameter apply to non-XML content.
Some argument about whether or not you can have non-XML *to* serialize.
Henry: We don't have to support this and I don't think that's a problem.
Alex: If I have a c:body element with a content-type of text/plain and I
have the word XProc in there and that's it and I don't specify any
options, I'm going to get an error.
... I'm going to run XML serialization on the text string XProc and the
serialization code is going to have a fit becuase I didn't set a method.
Vojtech: We say that the serialization options are provided to control
serialization of any XML content.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to fix the content model of c:body as it's
reproduced in the spec [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
Alex: I think we still don't have the content type handling correct here.
Henry: There's no paragraph that specifies what happens if the content
type does not specify an XML media type.
... What I said before was wrong, XML serialization is never involved if
the content type isn't an XML media type.
... We say the output will consist of "those characters" but what we have
to put on the wire is "those bytes"
To be continued.
Any other business?
None heard.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Alex to describe how content type values are computed.
[recorded in [23]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to add text about the error case after we have wording
from Alex [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to fix the content model of c:body as it's reproduced
in the spec [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [26]scribe.perl version 1.133 ([27]CVS
log)
$Date: 2009/03/11 15:16:54 $
References
Visible links
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-xproc-irc
4. file:///projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes.html#agenda
5. file:///projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes.html#item01
6. file:///projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes.html#item02
7. file:///projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes.html#item03
8. file:///projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes.html#item04
9. file:///projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes.html#item05
10. file:///projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes.html#item06
11. file:///projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes.html#item07
12. file:///projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes.html#item08
13. file:///projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes.html#item09
14. file:///projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes.html#item10
15. file:///projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes.html#item11
16. file:///projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-minutes.html#ActionSummary
17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/26-agenda
18. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes
19. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/
20. http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01
21. http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-xproc-minutes.html#action02
22. http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-xproc-minutes.html#action03
23. http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01
24. http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-xproc-minutes.html#action02
25. http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-xproc-minutes.html#action03
26. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
27. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 15:21:00 UTC