- 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
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 173, 10 Jun 2010
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Paul, Henry, Murray, Vojtech, Alex
Regrets
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, 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
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/05/27-minutes
Accepted.
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
->
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Jun/0003.html
Norm: So webkit ignores "element content whitespace", that is, reports all
whitespace.
<ht>
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jun/0003.html
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
whitespace".
... 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
whitespace"
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
properties.
... 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
list.
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
through.
Some discussion of external subsets and browser parsers.
Murray: I thought we were going to try to address reality by naming the
processes.
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
small
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
profile.
... 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
space:
... 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.
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([19]CVS
log)
$Date: 2010/06/11 19:18:11 $
References
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