See also: IRC log
Date: 27 September 2007
number Meeting: 85, T-minus 6 weeks
<scribe> Scribe: Norm
<scribe> ScribeNick: Norm
On the agenda already, MSM
<avernet> zakiim, ? is avernet
Murray gives regrets.
Mohamed: It's the requirements document that's ready for review.
Murray will take a look.
Norm: Thanks, Murray.
Comments list: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments.html
<MoZ> here is the last requirements for XSLT Streaming http://www.w3.org/mid/46F97ED6.email@example.com
Norm wonders what the intended semantics of the "all" option were.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to investigate [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Norm: I think we only meant for types declared in the pipeline and in the imported libraries, not recursively.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to clarify [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
Mohamed: We allow xml:base and xml:id everywhere in the pipeline document, so what is the processor supposed to do if there are xml:id or xml:base errors.
Norm: I understand xml:id errors, but what are xml:base errors?
Mohamed: I was thinking of bad characters or bad URIs.
Norm: I'm of two minds.
Paul: If it doesn't have anything to do with the pipeline, I don't see why we should give errors for it.
Norm: This is about xml:id attributes *in the pipeline*
Paul: This is a metaissue, it's the pipeline parser that will see the errors.
Norm: I'm not inclined to make it a fatal error.
Murray: Do we use the xml:ids?
... Anyone want more aggressive rules in XProc?
<alexmilowski> BTW, the 'all' option means every element gets an xml:base attribute
Norm: So we should say "element, processing-instruction, or document nodes", yes?
Mohamed: That would be half the question, but the other half would be to say on the select that only nodes of certain types will be wrapped as document nodes.
Norm: So we need to make it clear that what is selected can be a document.
Murray: It's clear to me that
what appears on any output must be a document. A wrapper around
a bunch of attributes is not a document.
... We've already established the rules, so we just need to clarify it.
Alessandro: It could be one document or a sequence of documents.
Norm: But I think Murray is right, we just need to clarify.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to clarify [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
Norm: Richard doesn't think that
p:input on pipeline should have a binding.
... But I think we intended the binding to be the default if no external binding was given.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to follow up. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action04]
Norm: I'm content with Richard's editorial suggestion, anyone disagree?
Norm: I think this got resovled in the thread
No one disagrees.
Norm: So the question is, if you
hand a pipeline *library* to a processor should it run a
... Seems to me that the implementation should take an option to specify which library
Rui: It's like make or ant, defaulting to a particular target.
Murray: But we're not recreating Make here
Rui: Some of the use cases are very similar
Murray: I seem to recall having this discussion; we said you can run a pipeline by name; it feels wrong to run a library.
Norm: I think the Make/ant use case is a little bit compelling
Norm muses out loud about running the first pipeline
Murray: If we're going to go down this road, I think we should provide explicit syntax.
Norm: Do we want to provide explicit syntax for this?
Alessandro: I'm not moved; I see
why Make and ant do it, it doesn't seem like it's a very large
distinction between a Makefile and a library that would be
used; but we're having this distinction in XProc.
... So it makes sense to me that what you run is a pipeline not a library.
Rui: You can run a jar file if the manifest gives a default class.
Murray: I don't think we should
do this as an afterthought; and I don't think we should do
... It seems like creeping featurism.
Question: should we add a feature to establish the default pipeline in a pipeline-library?
Y: 2; N: 6 (3 concur)
Norm: I don't see support for it. Anyone object to leaving it out of V1?
Murray wonders what Richard and Henry would have said. Norm does too, for that matter.
Norm: I'm inclined to agree with
his first comment.
... On his second, we run afoul of starting names with "xml".
Murray: I thought we wanted all the verbs to start with "validate".
Norm: Oh, you're right, this way they sort together.
Alex: So how about validate-with-...
Norm: Seems to me we have too choices; we could say "Oh, c'mon Mike..." or we could change them.
Alessandro: I think validate-with would be clearer.
<MoZ> +1 for validate-with-
Murray: What about just "validate" and peek at the input?
Alex: We decided we didn't want that.
Norm: Anyone object to renaming them validate-with?
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to put "parameters as strings" on next week's agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action05]
Alex: What about point 8?
Murray: Do we need to have a section that makes our vagueness more explicit.
<alexmilowski> "Infoset Processing
<alexmilowski> At a minimum, an XML document is represented and manipulated as an XML Information Set. The use of supersets, augmented information sets, or data models that can be represented or conceptualized as information sets should be allowed, and in some instances, encouraged (e.g. for the XPath 2.0 Data Model).
<alexmilowski> We say that in our requirements document.
Norm: What's now in 2.6.1 probably needs to be further up in the document
Alex: I think we need to say something explicit about being based on the Infoset
Murray: I think what goes between
the steps is a putative XML document. It could be an infoset,
it could be an XDM, it could be an XPath 1.0 NodeSet, it could
be any number of different things. And it depends on your
implementation how you're going to do that.
... We want you to bear in mind however, that it is something that could be mapped into an XML document. We're talking about a theoretical, or putative, document.
Alex: That's what using infoset would give us.
Norm: I think what we have in 2.6.1 is probably good enough, we should just move it up.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to ask Mike if he thinks that might be good enough. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action06]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/library/pipeline-library/ Found Scribe: Norm Inferring ScribeNick: Norm Found ScribeNick: Norm Default Present: Norm, PGrosso, [IPcaller], ruilopes, avernet, Murray_Maloney, MoZ, Andrew, Alex_Milowski Present: Norm Paul Rui Alessandro Murray Mohamed Regrets: Michael Richard Henry Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/27-agenda Found Date: 27 Sep 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html People with action items: norm[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]