- 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 UTC