24 Oct 2008

See also: IRC log






Reviewing use cases and requirements

Henry: With respect to 5.19, we found it useful to have a filter on input, so that you can say that the pipeline begins by processing *its* input with a filter and then proceeds.
... A use case that I had to implement was "here comes a document, it's a product-database-related document, there's a key field in this, you need to look up this field, if it exists in the database, you add the attribute, otherwise, add it to the database.

(This is with respect to 5.20)

<scribe> ACTION: Norm to check with Erik Bruchez about use case 5.24 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

Some discussion of the NVDL steps.


Some discusssion of versioning. We can ask what XPath version we have, but not what XSLT version.

Alex argues in favor of being able to check versions of XSLT, Schema Validation, etc.

Henry proposes an XML document that lists all the steps and the supported versions of each.

In short: all but a very small number of the use cases are satisfied by XProc V1.0

Henry: Propose that the editor produce a CR draft.


<scribe> ACTION: Norm to produce a CR draft. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-xproc-minutes.html#action02]

CR exit criteria

Henry: The ideal would be one of two things: one is a very carefully annotated issues list that shows we've dealt with all the CR comments and we have buyin from everyone reasonable and everyone we don't have buyin is unreasonable.
... And the other is an implementation report that shows three complete implementations of every feature.
... The bare minimum is two implementations of every feature.

Norm: Do we need a timetable?

Henry: Yes, we're being rechartered, so we should have a plan for getting to Rec and it better be before December, 2009.
... Aim to publish a CR draft in the middle of November, and set the CR period to end on 1 March.

Default XML Processing Model

Henry: There are two lines of potential exploration: One is that the XML spec itself leaves certain choices to the processor (e.g., external parameter entity references are expanded)
... And what that means is when you publish an XML document on the web, the question is, what are you held to. What is the document that is what you published? Or what is the infoset?
... The objective question that lurks behind it is, if there are entity references defined in an external parameter entity, and your parse doesn't retrieve them, are you bound by the statements present in the document when they involve unknown entity references.
... By the same token, what about XInclude processing.
... The infoset spec explicitly declines to answer the question of what is an XML document. Nor does the spec.
... The other line is this notion of the recursive, compositional semantics of XML documents.

Some discussion of what the default might be...

Henry: Another approach is, should we be talking about a third component to the XML media types. When you fetch a document, you can say, I want the 0 model, the 1 model, or the 2 model.
... Where the 0 model means what the parser gives you, the 1 model gives you XInclude, the 2 model gives you XInclude/validation model, etc.
... Another model says that you should be able to put a pipeline in a URI.

Consensus seems to be forming around the idea that the defalut XML Processing Model is normal XML parsing (with some constraints like, always chase external parameter entities for entity declarations), followed by XInclude.

Any other business?

Some discussion of the expectation of schema-location hints and what the defaults should be for try-namespaces= and use-schema-location=

There's some desire to have a consistent story around schema-location hints and schemas that arrive on the schemas port.

But it's not clear how implementations can support that.

Not clear what resolution we came to.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Norm to check with Erik Bruchez about use case 5.24 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to produce a CR draft. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/10/24 12:15:42 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/pot/port/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Norm
Inferring Scribes: Norm

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Henry MoZ Norm Vojtech alexmilowski ht joined left xproc
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 24 Oct 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-xproc-minutes.html
People with action items: norm

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]