Summary of 11 March 2002 TAG teleconf

[This format is a proposed compromise for meeting summaries:
  participation, agenda items, action item summary, IRC log.

  - Ian]

All present: Tim Berners-Lee (TBL), Tim Bray (TB), Dan Connolly
(DC), Paul Cotton (PC), Roy Fielding (RF), Chris Lilley (CL),
David Orchard (DO), Norm Walsh (NW), Stuart Williams (SW), Ian
Jacobs (IJ)

Agenda items:

  * Action item review (below)
  * Issue mixedNamespaceMeaning-13:
    "What is the meaning of a document composed of content
    in mixed namespaces?"

IRC log:
          [Quoted as text below]

Previous meeting: 4 March

Next meeting: 18 March

Action item review


  TBL: Kick off discusiion of mixed namespace interpretation
       on www-tag

  PC: Write summary of TAG activity to date

  DC/IJ: Send PC summary of TAG work to AC.

  PC: Summarize XMl PM workshop

  DC: Find XML PM workshop minutes


  RF: Summarize different approaches currently used for mapping
      URIs to media types.

  IJ: Integrate findings and issues into TAG arch doc toc.

  DC: Check with workshop chair, make the XML PM ws minutes available
      to the public, per CFP

  One pages summaries for arch document, to be completed this

  DC, TB: Section 1
  NW, SW: Section 2
  NW, PC: Section 3
  RF, DO: Section 4
  CL, PC: Section 5


Timestamps are in UTC.

15:16:17 [RRSAgent]
  RRSAgent has joined #tagmem

15:16:23 [timdesk]
  RRSAgent, pointer?

15:16:23 [timdesk]
  See [1]


15:17:13 [timdesk]
  Hmmm... I can't read that, RRSAGent.

15:17:29 [DanC]
  tim bray's message about an intro document didn't get to my
  inbox. Makes me v. nervous.

15:18:12 [timdesk]
  Where was it addressed to?

15:19:26 [DanC]

15:19:27 [timdesk]
  timdesk has changed the topic to:


15:20:01 [timdesk]
  timdesk has changed the topic to: PUBLIC LOG. Agenda:


15:21:54 [timdesk]
  The last messaeg I have in my inbox to the tag@ list is 3/5

15:22:34 [timdesk]
  Sorrt 3/8 from Chris re(2) agnga ...

15:26:23 [TimBray]
  TimBray has joined #tagmem

15:26:39 [TimBray]
  hey all, what's the phone#/code again?

15:27:00 [DanC]
  Zakim, what's the passcode?

15:27:01 [Zakim]
  sorry, DanC, I don't know what conference this is

15:27:06 [DanC]
  Zakim, this will be tag

15:27:07 [Zakim]
  ok, DanC

15:27:10 [DanC]
  Zakim, what's the passcode?

15:27:11 [Zakim]
  sorry, DanC, I don't know what conference this is

15:27:16 [TimBray]

15:27:18 [DanC]

15:27:28 [DanC]
  the agenda should say...

15:27:33 [TimBray]
  oh right

15:27:35 [Zakim]
  TAG_Weekly()10:30AM has now started

15:27:37 [Zakim]

15:27:54 [DanC]
  timdesk, [4] is not an
  agenda; W3C process says the phone number goes in the agenda.


15:28:34 [Norm]
  Norm has joined #tagmem

15:28:57 [timdesk]

15:29:08 [DanC]
  er... oops; I thought it did. but I can't confirm in


15:29:09 [timdesk]
  Its not schema valid.

15:29:11 [Zakim]

15:29:12 [Zakim]

15:29:58 [Zakim]

15:30:06 [DanC]
  Zakim, what's the passcode?

15:30:07 [Zakim]
  the conference code is 0824, DanC

15:30:44 [Stuart]
  Stuart has joined #tagmem

15:31:02 [Roy]
  Roy has joined #tagmem

15:31:30 [Zakim]

15:31:30 [Zakim]

15:31:31 [Zakim]

15:31:51 [timdesk]
  Zakim, what is the passcode?

15:31:52 [Zakim]
  the conference code is 0824, timdesk

15:32:03 [TimBL]
  Zakim, whois here?

15:32:03 [Zakim]
  I don't understand your question, TimBL.

15:32:07 [TimBL]
  Zakim, who is here?

15:32:08 [Zakim]
  I see TimBL, ??P7, DanC

15:32:22 [TimBL]
  Zakim, ??P7 is Roy

15:32:23 [Zakim]
  +Roy; got it

15:32:44 [Zakim]

15:32:48 [Zakim]

15:33:09 [Zakim]

15:33:25 [TimBL]
  Zakim, ??P8 is PaulC

15:33:26 [Zakim]
  +PaulC; got it

15:33:33 [Stuart]
  Zakim, +??P10 is me

15:33:35 [Zakim]
  sorry, Stuart, I do not recognize a party named '+??P10'

15:33:44 [Stuart]
  Zakim, ??P10 is me

15:33:45 [Zakim]
  +Stuart; got it

15:35:01 [DanC]
  I have a code in by dose.

15:35:10 [Ian]
  Ian has joined #tagmem

15:35:22 [DanC]
  dialing in, Ian?

15:36:06 [Zakim]

15:36:31 [TimBL]
  Zakim, who is here?

15:36:32 [Zakim]
  I see TimBL, Roy, DanC, PaulC, TBray, Stuart, Ian

15:36:57 [Zakim]

15:37:41 [TimBL]


15:37:52 [DanC]
  [member confidential. :-{]

15:37:54 [TimBL]
  Is a message from Tim Bray

15:38:46 [Ian]
  NW: One-page summary , section 2. We have different approaches
  (more/less technical).

15:38:47 [DanC]
  I did read TimBray's pg
  [7] . Good for software
  folks; doesn't say anything for webmasters. doesn't say
  anything about a "space".


15:38:51 [Ian]
  ...which way should it go?

15:38:51 [DanC]

15:38:56 [Ian]
  TB: Should be correct but readable.

15:39:30 [Ian]
  NW: SW and I would ilke to unify. There's a spectrum. We
  entered at two different points.

15:39:43 [DanC]
  I like friendly/chatty.

15:39:51 [Ian]
  PC: One-page summary , section 3. Sitting on my desk now.

15:40:08 [Ian]
  TBL: Don't hestitate to cc if you are sending
  messages back and forth.

15:40:17 [Ian]
  One-page summary , section 4

15:40:26 [Ian]
  RF: I'm going to send our current state during this call.

15:40:37 [Ian]
  ...I received last night and read through; haven't made
  comments yet.

15:40:50 [Chris]
  Chris has joined #tagmem

15:41:10 [Ian]
  One-page summary , section 5

15:41:31 [Ian]
  CL: I sent in some notes, but not yet discussed with PC.

15:42:24 [DanC]
  if you're setting deadlines, tim, COB Fri doesn't help me at
  all. COB Thu is the latest that's useful.

15:42:25 [Ian]
  TBL: Goal - end of business Friday. Whatever you've got, please
  sent to, or www-tag if you wish (I'm happy for

15:43:16 [Ian]
  DC: Close of biz Friday not good for me.

15:43:36 [Ian]
  RF: I'm having trouble getting stuff done on weekend in
  preparation of this meeting.

15:44:08 [Ian]
  TBL: Please finish drafts by c.o.b. on Weds, then.

15:44:22 [Ian]
  Action DC: check with workshop chair, make the XML PM ws
  minutes available to the public, per CFP

15:44:24 [Ian]
  DC: No progress.

15:45:04 [Zakim]

15:45:11 [Ian]
  Action IJ: Take over DC's action to send summary to AC.

15:45:14 [TimBL]
  .Action Ian - take that from Dan - send paul's summary

15:45:18 [Ian]


15:45:57 [Ian]
  Action IJ: Integrate findings into TAG arch doc toc.

15:46:00 [Ian]
  TBL: I thought I had done that.

15:46:10 [Ian]
  TB: Should be integrating issues as well as findings.

15:46:13 [Ian]
  IJ: No progress.

15:46:13 [DanC]
  TimBL, you're doing well to review the actions in the maximally
  confusing order. ;-)

15:47:06 [Ian]
  Action RF: Summarize different approaches currently used for
  mapping URIs to media types.

15:47:08 [Ian]
  RF: No progress.

15:47:18 [Ian]

15:47:38 [Ian]
  mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 : What is the meaning of a document
  composed of content in mixed namespaces?

15:47:42 [Ian]


15:47:52 [Ian]
  "The Interpretation of XML documents

15:47:52 [Ian]

15:47:55 [Ian]


15:47:56 [DanC]
  the agenda includes "3/18" referring to a date; pls don't do
  that. write 18 Mar or 2002-03-18 .

15:48:47 [Ian]
  TBL summarizing: There is a set of things like embedded xslt,
  xinclude, xquery, etc. These things elaborate in a particular
  way how they are to be replaced.

15:49:01 [Ian]
  ...the meaning of the xml document should be that after

15:49:22 [Ian]
  ...processors should expect to see this type of content
  anywhere in an xml document and be prepared to deal with it.

15:49:49 [Ian]
  ...there are certain architectural principles such as piece X
  can replace itself but can't touch other parts of the XML tree.

15:50:54 [Ian]
  PC: Please elucidate the encryption problem early in XML.html.

15:51:03 [Ian]
  TB: DO has a rant on this as well.

15:51:28 [Ian]
  TBL: We know how to say what an xhtml document is (spec +

15:51:41 [Chris]
  This model does not seem to describe XSL-T processing very well

15:52:25 [Ian]
  TBL: For XML Encryption, people have been running an entire
  document through a processor. But when several of these
  functional pieces are together, there is a big-ending type

15:52:33 [Ian]
  TBL: When you treat as functions, there are no problems.

15:52:39 [Ian]
  CL: Not "no problems" but "different problems".

15:52:48 [DanC]
  I wonder if the "functions" view is consistent with the "stack
  of SAX filters" implementation technique.

15:53:38 [Ian]
  TBL: Suppose part of a document is encrypted. E.g., xhtml
  document with a meaty bit in xml encryption.

15:54:19 [TimBray]
  I assume there are use cases...this notion of partial
  encryption seems like very poor security practice, but what do
  I know?

15:54:21 [Ian]
  ...This is not a valid xhtml document. So what is it? The
  proposed answer is: if you support xml encryption, then you
  expect it anywhere, and should be able to decrypt in the right
  setting (e.g., right keys). The "meaning" is after that

15:54:31 [Ian]

15:54:38 [DanC]

15:54:47 [Chris]
  I wonder how this functional approach affecxts things like

15:54:51 [Ian]
  TBL: If you have an encrypted thing that contains an xinclude,
  you must decrypt first before getting xinclude.

15:55:02 [Dave]
  Dave has joined #tagmem

15:55:02 [Ian]
  PC: When does schema validation get done.

15:55:17 [Dave]

15:55:19 [TimBray]

15:55:21 [Norm]
  The functional way doesn't work for me either, just because
  XInclude is inside xsl:template doesn't mean I want the
  template fired before the xinclude

15:55:21 [Chris]

15:55:23 [Ian]
  TBL: Schema validation doesn't make sense until after the
  functional expansion has been done.

15:55:23 [TimBray]

15:55:24 [Dave]

15:56:09 [Ian]
  DC: How is this Web architecture? [DC groks expanding xml
  encryption and finding xml includes in their place.]

15:56:17 [Ian]
  TBL: Architecture based on sending information to each other.

15:56:50 [Ian]
  PC to DC: We started talking about MIME types. TimBL started in
  by saying that the namespace of the root element was very
  important. Some of us argued against that (citing xslt

15:57:00 [Ian]
  ....when you look at it you can't tell what type of document it

15:57:05 [DanC]
  "root element NS is important" ... important for what?

15:57:28 [Ian]
  PC: So, this is "Web architecture" following logic that got us
  to this question.

15:57:49 [TimBL]
  q+ PC

15:57:54 [Ian]
  TBL: The problem is when recipient goes through different
  process than author expected.

15:58:03 [Ian]
  DC: I still don't get why this is important.

15:58:08 [Chris]
  ack DanC

15:58:12 [TimBL]
  ack DanC

15:58:13 [Ian]
  TBL: Do you think that defining what an xml document means is

15:58:17 [Ian]
  DC: Not in the general case.

15:58:30 [Ian]
  TB: DC may be right. Does this problem go away after processing
  model work starts?

15:58:52 [DanC]

15:58:55 [Ian]
  TB: On when to do schema validation: I could right a schema for
  partially encrypted documents.

15:58:57 [Norm]
  What TimBray said. We went around in circles over this at the
  procmodel workshop: there is no right answer.

15:58:59 [DanC]
  note to self: about XInclude and Schema

15:59:06 [Ian]
  TBL to TB: You could, yes, but there are unanswered questions.

15:59:18 [Ian]
  TB: This problem goes away, IMO, once we have a processing

15:59:30 [Ian]
  TBL: This is my contribution to the processing model debate:


15:59:32 [DanC]
  Norm, TimBray, there's no

15:59:39 [DanC]
  "processing mode" working group chartered presently.

15:59:40 [TimBL]
  ack TimBray

15:59:52 [Ian]
  TB: See pipeline proposal:

16:00:12 [TimBL]
  ack Chris

16:00:16 [Ian]
  TBL: Pipeline is half of processing model.

16:00:17 [DanC]
  XML Pipeline Definition Language Version 1.0

16:00:17 [DanC]
  28 February 2002, Norman Walsh, Eve Maler (XML Pipeline
  Definition Language Submission)

16:00:20 [Norm]

16:00:25 [DanC]


16:00:33 [Ian]
  TB: TBL, you're hosed if you just get an xml document and don't
  know all the namespaces.

16:00:52 [Ian]
  CL: My problem with TBL's writing doesn't describe schema
  processing or xslt processing.

16:01:38 [Ian]
  TBL: My document doesn't tell you the order of processing.

16:01:46 [Ian]
  CL: It does give one order, that's not universally applicable.

16:02:03 [DanC]
  TimBL, when PC asked about order, you said "yes, you have to
  decrypt before xinclude". I'm confused.

16:02:37 [Ian]
  TBL: You can choose to elaborate functions or not. Depending on
  who you are. But the meaning of the document is what you would
  get if you expanded them all.

16:02:49 [TimBL]
  ack Dave

16:02:55 [Ian]
  TBL continuing: But it doesn't matter to me who does what, for

16:03:18 [Ian]
  DO: On the XML encryption issue: One of the tenets (or
  invariants) of the Web (IMO) is that documents are

16:04:01 [Ian]
  DO: You can encrypt portion of a message (e.g., SOAP) and XML
  Encryption doesn't say what to do in this case. I suggested to
  them that, anyone who encrypts should make some sort of change
  to keep a document self-describing.

16:04:13 [Ian]
  TBL: If you encrypt an entire document, there will be a mime
  type for this.

16:04:27 [Ian]
  ...if you are talking about the case of subtrees....

16:04:52 [Ian]
  TBL: What do you mean by self-describing? Do you mean that by
  looking at mime headers you should know what to do?

16:04:53 [TimBray]
  in DO's argument s/encryption/xinclude/ or s/encryption/xquery/
  - point still holds

16:05:17 [Ian]
  DO: If you "just look at a[n encrypted] document" and think
  it's xml, the content type lies about what's really there.

16:05:37 [Ian]
  ...the first thing that has to happen is that there needs to be
  a clue that somethign has been encrypted.

16:05:53 [Chris]
  I note that this model means that you can never schema validate
  anything but the fully-expanded result

16:05:57 [DanC]

16:06:14 [Chris]
  which means that any xml language for a function becomes

16:06:20 [Ian]
  TBL: When you say the first thing that needs to be done is
  decryption, that may not be the case.

16:06:21 [Chris]

16:06:26 [DanC]

16:06:40 [Ian]
  TBL: Suppose that a browser does incremental rendering until
  the viewport has been filled.

16:06:58 [Ian]
  ...the browser could choose to not retrieve images or decrypt
  content unless absolutely necessary (lazy processing).

16:07:15 [Ian]
  PC: I now understand DO's rant.

16:07:43 [Ian]
  PC: DO is concerned about case when mime type says "foo/bar"
  but you have to decrypt part of a document to get "foo/bar"

16:08:03 [Chris]
  The MIME type becomes an assertion of what will result after an
  arbitrary amount of processing

16:08:11 [Dave]

16:08:23 [TimBL]

16:08:36 [Ian]
  PC: I thought that the XML Processing workshop came to a
  conclusion - that there is no generic processing model. There
  are always counter examples.

16:09:17 [Ian]
  PC: XSLT 2 will allow stuff after PSV

16:09:30 [Ian]
  PC: I don't think the workshop was a failure; it showed lots of

16:10:17 [Ian]
  PC: People at workshop felt that XML Core WG would be a good
  forum for this work.

16:10:51 [Chris]

16:11:19 [DanC]
  ack PC

16:11:22 [DanC]
  ack Norm

16:11:23 [Ian]
  NW: When I first read TBL's paper, I thought it specified a
  processing order. I don't think it's possible to do in an
  arbitrary order.

16:11:35 [Ian]
  NW: I think that unless you have a private agreement, there's
  no right answer in the general case.

16:11:40 [Ian]

16:11:44 [Ian]

16:11:57 [DanC]
  ack Dave

16:12:02 [Chris]
  it specifies an order by the order of the immediate children of
  the root

16:12:04 [Ian]
  DO: I suggested in a paper at the workshop that this work be
  done in XML Core WG.

16:12:25 [Chris]
  I agree with Tim that this means the porder can be altered,as
  long as you can rewrite the instance

16:12:31 [Ian]
  DO: I think there should be an explicit processing model for
  how to process XML documents, and a language that describes it.

16:13:01 [Ian]
  DO: For some applications, there may be an explicit processing
  model. A minimalist suggestion is that we can say "For
  document-oriented XML Dcouments, use the following order...."

16:13:22 [Ian]
  ...perhaps in machine-oriented realm, this may not be the right
  way to do things.

16:13:48 [TimBray]

16:14:38 [DanC]
  per the agenda, we're on issue mixedNamespaceMeaning-13. lemme
  swap that in...


16:14:54 [Dave]

16:15:14 [Ian]
  NW: TBL, you seem to be asserting that if you elaborate b
  before a or in the other order, the results will be the same.

16:15:28 [Ian]
  TBL: Yes, I am within the constraint that the elaboration has
  no impact on the rest of the document.

16:16:26 [Ian]
  NW: Suppose I build a TOC before or after processing XIncludes.
  I might get 3 or 4 chapters depending on when I expect

16:16:52 [TimBray]
  you'll be happy to hear that I plan to try for some concluding

16:17:01 [Ian]

16:17:20 [TimBL]
  There is a draft by Simon StLaurent aboyt putting the sum of
  the nsamepsaces in the mime type - this addresses DavidO's
  concern. This is a concern.

16:17:33 [Norm]
  When people put X in their document, they *do* know what they
  mean. But if you had me your document, *I* don't know what you
  meant. You have to tell me.

16:17:40 [Chris]
  Not clear that a list of namespaces helps too much

16:17:43 [Ian]
  TB: I think that if you look at what came out of processing
  model workshop, and our discussion here, it's hard to make
  statements about processing that are wide in their

16:18:08 [Ian]
  TB: I think it's a good idea to define a processing model.
  However, at the moment we don't have a formal way to write this

16:18:10 [Chris]

16:18:21 [DanC]
  ack timbl

16:18:23 [DanC]
  ack timbray

16:18:36 [DanC]
  after chris

16:18:41 [Ian]
  TB: Given that we only have human-readable prose. We might want
  to start a processing model group that provides language
  designers a way to write down their processing model.

16:19:34 [Ian]
  TB: You can ignore my processing order, but I have the "right"
  to express it.

16:19:42 [DanC]

16:19:51 [Chris]
  TimBL has just mnade my point

16:19:59 [Chris]
  well, part of it

16:20:00 [DanC]
  take you off the queue, then?

16:20:05 [Chris]

16:20:08 [DanC]

16:20:09 [Ian]
  TBL: In XML you sometimes get this "battle" between precedence
  at the attribute level.

16:20:30 [DanC]
  not to self: who made a promise that all XML namespaces can be
  arbitrarily mixed?

16:20:58 [Dave]

16:21:08 [DanC]
  note to self: on CR exit criteria for schema/XINclude/etc.

16:21:18 [Ian]
  TBL: We're shipping xslt and xinclude. People think they know
  how to interpret these things. We will either get a de facto
  clash (e.g., you can't use both at the same time) or there is a
  simple processing model and the xml processing model is on too
  high a plane.

16:21:42 [Ian]
  CL: Subgroups are agreeing among themselves on processing
  models, for a limited set of processing.

16:21:48 [Ian]
  ...localized architecture.

16:21:49 [TimBray]
  TBray said: a processing model facility is good even if people
  can write conflicting demands with it

16:21:54 [Norm]

16:21:59 [DanC]
  ack Chris

16:22:12 [Ian]
  CL: It's not clear that we can generalize to all combinations.
  We should still write down the localized parts.

16:22:52 [Ian]
  TB to CL: Are you asserting that we should look with favor on
  two groups getting together and saying "Always do A before B?"

16:23:09 [Ian]
  CL: No, we should recognize that they are already doing this
  and either help them or tell them not to.

16:23:38 [Ian]
  DC: I asked at CR discussion which went first xinclude or
  schema; people not interested in the answer at the time.

16:23:43 [Norm]

16:23:48 [Norm]
  ack danc

16:23:51 [Ian]
  DC: ...the cat is out of the bag as far as I'm concerned.

16:24:11 [Ian]
  DC: If we say now that you can mix our specs in any order and
  get a consistent result, that's like returning 2 years in the
  past. May not be easy.

16:24:16 [Ian]

16:24:36 [Ian]
  DO: The processing model comes up when you want to mix content.

16:24:49 [Ian] is written to understand particular namespaces.

16:25:17 [Ian]
  DO: ...the scale of things we could do is to define an explicit
  processing model that could be contained within each particular
  document; to give the author a way to say what they think the
  proper order is.

16:25:23 [Ian]
  DO: Another extreme is to do nothing.

16:25:37 [Chris]
  I remember I wanted to praise the value of namespaces that do
  not alter the infoset

16:25:39 [Ian]
  DO: Slightly less than that is to write down instructions for
  commonly used processing.

16:26:21 [DanC]

16:26:26 [DanC]
  ack Dave

16:26:53 [Chris]
  The longer we leave it, the more existing practice we have to
  break to enforce a single global architecture

16:26:54 [Ian]
  NW: TBL said there were two possibilities: clash or simple
  model. There's a third possibility - different communities will
  get used to different processing models.

16:27:31 [Ian]
  NW: ..and we will have to have ways to describe which model we
  are using in which case.

16:27:57 [Chris]

16:28:08 [Ian]
  TBL: Can we make a default processing?

16:28:23 [TimBray]

16:28:31 [Ian]
  NW: Maybe xhtml browsers need to have a fixed processing order.
  Not the same as saying that all applications need the same
  processing order.

16:28:40 [Ian]
  TB: Maybe there's an 80/20 point we can hit.

16:29:08 [Ian]
  TB: Getting 80% right would be a huge boost to

16:29:15 [Norm]

16:29:25 [Ian]
  IJ: Is TB's document good enough as a default order?

16:29:36 [Chris]
  q+ Paul

16:29:51 [Ian]
  PC: I'd like to probe TBL's arch principle - functions that
  have no side effects elsewhere in the tree.

16:30:24 [Ian]
  PC: I hear TBL saying if you have this type of XML, then a
  browser could choose which functions to elaborate at any given

16:31:04 [Ian]
  TBL: I was deliberately being independent of who is doing the
  processing. But you are right, by not allowing side effects,
  you allow independence.

16:31:23 [Ian]
  PC: This means that this model works only for functions that
  don't have side effects.

16:31:34 [Ian]
  ...which of our functions today don't have side effects?

16:31:49 [Ian]
  PC: Norm gave a counter-example that adjusts the document by
  putting in a table of contents.

16:32:05 [Ian]
  TBL: The table of contents expands in place. But because it can
  take input from outside the tree....

16:32:17 [Ian]
  PC: XML Schema has side effects when there are referential
  integrity constraints.

16:32:17 [DanC]

16:32:32 [Ian]
  TBL: I don't see XML Schema as a function.

16:32:36 [Chris]

16:32:46 [Ian]
  TBL: I see it as a thing that only applies once all functions

16:33:01 [Ian]
  TB: I don't buy that. Some people will want to validate
  documents with some encrypted parts.

16:33:24 [Ian]
  PC: E.g., encrypted header in a SOAP message.

16:34:21 [Norm]
  On the subject of schema ref-integrity constraints: I believe
  they're tree-local. So they would actually work on a
  tree-by-tree basis.

16:34:25 [Ian]
  CL: On whether schemas should be applied at the end [@@scribe
  missed comment@@]

16:34:34 [Dave]

16:34:55 [Chris]
  model implies you can never schema validate a function writen
  in an xml syntax

16:35:10 [Chris]
  because it dissapears before the schema processor ever sees it

16:35:33 [Ian]
  TBL: I think we need to design a system where people can use
  these functions anywhere in a document. But yes, you might want
  to use schema techniques to detect that some particular piece
  has been encrypted.

16:35:34 [DanC]
  q+ Paul

16:35:36 [TimBray]

16:35:48 [Ian]
  DO: I could see in this processing model that you would want to
  do two passes of schema validation.

16:36:14 [TimBray]
  Here's an 80/20 point strawman:

16:36:22 [TimBray]
  1. Decrypt the parts you are equipped to

16:36:26 [TimBray]
  2. Do any Xinclude

16:36:34 [TimBray]
  3. Run XSLT if required

16:36:47 [TimBray]

16:37:12 [Ian]
  [Time check]

16:37:37 [DanC]
  summary (a) TimBL wants a "default -- what a document means"
  (b) folks want stuff like a pipieline language (c) Chris would
  be happy with a browser-only solution.

16:37:45 [Ian]
  DC: We have an IETF teleconf today.

16:38:32 [Dave]
  Ian, you missed my comment on trying for an 80/20 point that is
  simple and generally human-oriented as a first step. And you
  missed the same point on my earlier discussion

16:38:41 [Chris]
  Chris would be happy with defined pipelines of localised scope
  (for example, anm xml user agent scope, a SOAP scope...)

16:38:46 [Ian]
  Thanks DO.

16:39:10 [Ian]
  PC: Much of this is about the infoset. Even schema PSV doesn't
  touch the infoset.

16:39:18 [TimBray]
  4. Validate

16:39:26 [Ian]
  DO: I will note that XML Schema gave extensive comments to
  XInclude about what they wanted in infoset.

16:39:40 [Ian]
  PC: I thought encryption and signing ran across infost.

16:39:50 [Ian]
  DO: No, they are designed to use XPath.

16:39:58 [Dave]
  xpath 1.0

16:40:03 [Ian]
  TBL: Canonicalization model.

16:40:22 [Ian]
  PC: When we want to sign things that depend on schema
  attributes, then we'll have to pull away from xpath 1.0 data

16:40:43 [Ian]
  TBL: No, when you sign something, you sign the xpath model; pre
  schema validation.

16:40:54 [TimBL]
  I am very surprised that PaulC suggests that XIncldue does not
  change the infoset.

16:41:01 [Norm]
  Me too

16:41:20 [Ian]
  PC: I find it interesting that we have a series of specs that
  act like functions, and another series that doesn't behave like
  this. Is this an architectural problem?

16:41:24 [TimBray]

16:41:42 [Dave]

16:42:25 [Ian]
  TBL: The case of encryption and dsig - not defined on surface
  syntax; defined on xpath, which those specs consider an
  infoset. They are defined on an abstract syntax.

16:42:52 [DanC]
  I think PC's point is about functions on infoset (i.e. abstract
  syntax) vs. functions on surface syntax

16:43:20 [Ian]
  TB parenthetically: Whatever model we take, I think we should
  not limit modifications to infoset; you'll need to be able to
  modify the syntax as well.

16:43:30 [DanC]

16:43:31 [Ian]
  TB: If there's an 80/20 point, where is it? Is it as simple as

16:43:53 [Ian]
  a) In the absence of indications to the contrary, first
  decrypt, then process includes, then run xslt, then validate.

16:43:56 [TimBL]

16:43:57 [Ian]
  TB: Is this worth doing?

16:44:10 [DanC]
  I like the idea of a user-agent processing model.

16:44:17 [Ian]
  s/first decrypt/first decrypt what you can/

16:44:17 [DanC]

16:44:59 [Ian]
  CL to TB: This means that you can assert validity of some
  subtrees, but must leave what you can't decrypt.

16:45:18 [Ian]
  DO: I like TB's idea. I think from UA perspective, most people
  will do validation before (something else).

16:45:27 [Ian]
  PC: This won't work in XSLT 2.0.

16:46:02 [Ian]
  DO: I hear PC would be more comfortable if schema validation
  were done before xslt.

16:46:15 [Ian]
  PC: I think that "it depends". I think that the 80/20 cut might
  change with XSLT 2.0.

16:46:33 [Ian]
  PC: ....templates will look for data types, not just element
  and attribute names.

16:46:41 [Ian]
  PC: ....if 80/20 cut changes, that makes me nervous.

16:46:43 [Dave]

16:47:02 [TimBray]

16:47:04 [Zakim]
  TimBray, if you meant to query the queue, please say 'q?'; if
  you meant to replace the queue, please say 'queue= ...'

16:47:09 [TimBray]

16:47:13 [Ian]
  TBL: When you run a C program, should you calculate strings
  first, or math, or built-ins?

16:47:36 [Ian]
  TBL: When you look at them as functions, deciding which to do
  first is a ridiculous question.

16:48:14 [Ian]
  TBL: Schema is a more interesting question. When you are
  looking for a piece of a document, even if you've not
  elaborated a piece, you may find a particular element instance.

16:48:30 [Ian]
  TBL: It could be that schema processing could be done as a
  local elaboration.

16:48:37 [Ian]

16:48:46 [Ian]
  PC: This is too simplistic a model for how schema runs.

16:48:46 [DanC]
  Ian, you're available to scribe next week, 18Mar, yes?

16:49:18 [Ian]
  PC: TBL's description is correct for simple cases.

16:49:38 [Ian]
  TBL: I have 2 problems with TB's proposal as the 80/20 cut.

16:50:00 [DanC]
  I'm slightly at risk 18Mar; travelling. plan to be available,
  but things could go bad.

16:50:08 [Ian]
  a) For one thing, it's over-constraining: if in one part of a
  document there is encryption and another is xinclude, I may
  want to do one at one moment and another on the plane.

16:50:28 [Dave]

16:50:40 [Ian]
  TBL: Making an ordered list will knock out software that does
  things in a different order when the order is relevant.

16:50:53 [Ian]
  TBL: I like the summary:

16:51:00 [Ian]
  - Order doesn't matter unless,

16:51:13 [Ian]
  - Your function applies or interacts with another part of the

16:51:19 [Norm]
  I don't think it works for subtrees either.

16:51:28 [Ian]
  TBL: There are a lot of cases that TB's order doesn't solve.

16:51:56 [Norm]
  I might have a bit of XSLT that counts things in my subtree.
  The processing-or-not of xinclude inside my subtree will effect
  the count.

16:52:00 [Ian]
  TBL: In my model, siblings are processed in an arbitrary order.

16:52:12 [DanC]
  TimBL, I suggest you take TBray's comment as feedback that your
  proposal isn't understood. [as he said]

16:52:20 [Ian]
  TB: If this order doesn't break anything substantial, then
  TBL's 80/20 may be acceptable. I need to reread.

16:52:42 [Ian]
  PC: If we attach a name to TBL's default, then we need to allow
  people to say "Use the default or don't."

16:52:55 [Norm]

16:53:15 [Norm]

16:53:15 [Ian]
  DO: I don't think we'll get to an 80/20 position on this. I
  think the TAG should punt on this issue. Maybe give advice to
  another group to discuss this.

16:53:18 [Ian]

16:53:30 [DanC]
  TimBL, over to you

16:53:51 [Ian]
  DO: If I can specify an attribute to say "use default
  processing", then I can go with that.

16:53:52 [TimBL]

16:53:53 [Zakim]
  TimBL, if you meant to query the queue, please say 'q?'; if you
  meant to replace the queue, please say 'queue= ...'

16:54:38 [Dave]
  Wonder if the rathole map will be a rathole

16:54:46 [DanC]
  Zakim, please put your help messages in /me actions or in
  -notice- thingies, not in the log.

16:54:47 [Zakim]
  I don't understand 'please put your help messages in /me
  actions or in -notice- thingies, not in the log.', DanC. Try
  /msg Zakim help

16:55:02 [Stuart]

16:55:05 [Ian]
  PC: I agree that, if we could define components that met TBL's
  constraints (local subtrees only), then having any kind of
  processing model would be easier.

16:55:36 [DanC]
  Chris, I'd like to see you write something up about an
  xml-user-agent way of doing things.

16:55:57 [Ian]

16:55:58 [Dave]
  Roy, did you get my text?

16:56:06 [Ian]
  TBL: Please recall to send 1-page summaries by Weds.

16:56:19 [Zakim]

16:56:19 [Zakim]

16:56:20 [Ian]

16:56:29 [Zakim]

16:56:30 [Zakim]

16:56:31 [Zakim]

16:56:38 [Zakim]

16:57:02 [Stuart]
  I think it's not just about confining an effect to a sub-tree.
  I think the sources that an XML function draws on are also

16:57:20 [Zakim]

16:59:41 [DanC]
  Ian, do you think the sort of summary I sent about last week's
  meeting is sufficiently easy to do that it doesn't impose a

16:59:52 [Ian]
  I haven't seen it.

17:00:23 [DanC]
  summary has (a) attendance (b) list of agenda items, with
  actions and decisions under each.

17:00:46 [Ian]

17:00:48 [Stuart]
  I think this is the case with Norm's TOC example which draws
  it's influences broadly from a document.

17:01:24 [DanC]
  * notes from 4 Mar TAG telcon [was: IRC log?] Dan Connolly
  (Fri, Mar 08 2002)


17:02:43 [Ian]
  Yes, that's do-able.

17:03:05 [Stuart]

17:03:08 [Stuart]
  Stuart has left #tagmem

17:04:04 [TimBL]
  Ian, I will be around. i want grab some lunch while the q is

17:04:16 [TimBL]
  RRSAgent, bye

Ian Jacobs (
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 20:45:37 UTC