XProc Minutes 30 June 2011

See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 195, 30 Jun 2011


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Norm, Paul, Alex, Henry, Jim, Vojtech





     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 14 July 2011?
         4. [8]Validation in XML processor profiles
         5. [9]Do we say enough about xml:base in steps like p:add-attribute
         6. [10]Any other business?

     * [11]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/09-minutes


  Next meeting: telcon, 14 July 2011?

   Vojtech gives regrets.

  Validation in XML processor profiles

   Norm: Henry, we asked you to take a look.

   Henry: Yes. After looking at it for a while, I don't think it belongs in
   this spec.
   ... It's a one-clause statement. Instead of someone saying "the input
   processing for my spec is the whatever profile", they say "comes from a
   *validating* processor that conforms to the whatever profile"
   ... That seems to be the right way to do it, and we already have a
   statement about the fact that some properties, such as
   element-content-whitespace depend on whether or not you have a validating

   Norm: Because the only difference is ... element content whitespace?

   Henry: Well, even if that wasn't true, I don't think I'd want to make 2n
   profiles where we have n today.
   ... It's the wrong place to multiply things.
   ... And element-content-whitespace is the only place where it isn't
   completely orthogonal.

   Alex: Validation is either on the input or the output, depending on where
   you're doing it.

   Henry: Indeed. Another thing I failed to put in the email is that there
   are "n" schema languages out there and which one(s) you want to require is
   up to you.

   Alex: I think it would behoove us to have a specific section to enumerate
   some of these things. It's a "How Should You Consider Validation" section.

   Henry: I agree. I'll try to draft that.

   <jimfuller> +1 to that, good idea

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry to draft a new section for XML processor profiles
   that discusses how to consider validation. [recorded in

   Henry: Mention E-C-WS, mention before or after, mention alternative schema

  Do we say enough about xml:base in steps like p:add-attribute

   Norm attempts to reconstruct the XProc/Core xml:base discussion.

   Alex: The question is, if you add or change an xml:base attribute in the
   DOM in a browser, what should happen to the base URI property.

   Henry: There's nothing in the XProc spec that you're concerned about.

   Henry: So the question is, given that HTML5 gives you a way of changing
   all kinds of stuff in the DOM, should we say something about what changing
   the xml:base attribute means.

   Paul: In the past, we've always stayed away from the editing cases, and
   dealt with what it means to parse a document.

   Henry: I think we want XML Core to ask HTML5 to make it explicit about
   what happens when you change xml:base.

   Alex: In HTML5 the specific case is that xml:base *does* effect the base
   URI of things like images. Now if you go back and add an xml:base
   attribute, what should happen?
   ... I think from a browser implementor perspective, the sane thing to say
   is that the base URI changes but no URIs are recomputed.
   ... It's not just HTML5 that has this problem.

   Paul: So what I hear is that someone should point out that HTML5 should
   say what happens when you change xml:base.

   Alex: I opened a bug,
   [15]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12924 on the issue.

   Henry has to leave. Norm steps away.

   <PGrosso> HT points out that it would make a stronger statement if a WG
   filed such a comment.

   <PGrosso> Paul suggested the xproc WG could do that. ht thought it might
   make more sense for the xml core wg to do it.

   <PGrosso> Paul could live with it either way as long as someone else
   (e.g., Alex, Henry, Norm) writes the comment.

   Norm returns.

   Norm argues we've done enough. Henry counters that it means more if it
   comes from a WG when reviewed by the Director.

   Paul: I think it makes more sense to come from XProc.

   <jimfuller> me too

   Norm: Would you take the action to write the comment and send it to our
   list for review.

   Alex: Sure.

   <scribe> ACTION: Alex to draft a comment about xml:base processing for the
   XProc WG to send to HTML5 WG. [recorded in

   Norm: I'm inclined to leave the question about whether or not our spec
   says enough off until Henry returns.
   ... Any objections?

   None heard.

  Any other business?

   None heard.


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Alex to draft a comment about xml:base processing for the
   XProc WG to send to HTML5 WG. [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to draft a new section for XML processor profiles that
   discusses how to consider validation. [recorded in

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version 1.136 ([20]CVS
    $Date: 2011/06/30 14:27:00 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-minutes#ActionSummary
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-agenda
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/09-minutes
  14. http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  15. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12924
  16. http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  17. http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  18. http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  19. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  20. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 14:27:58 UTC