- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:27:27 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m239irwg1c.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/30-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 195, 30 Jun 2011
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Paul, Alex, Henry, Jim, Vojtech
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, 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
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/06/09-minutes
Accepted.
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
processor.
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
[14]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Henry: Mention E-C-WS, mention before or after, mention alternative schema
languages.
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
[16]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
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.
Adjourned.
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
[17]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to draft a new section for XML processor profiles that
discusses how to consider validation. [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version 1.136 ([20]CVS
log)
$Date: 2011/06/30 14:27:00 $
References
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