W3C

XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 99, 24 Jan 2008

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Alex, Alessandro, Norm, Rui, Richard, Andrew, Mohamed, Henry
Regrets
Paul
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm

Contents


Accept this agenda?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/24-agenda

Accepted.

Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/17-minutes

Accepted.

Next meeting: telcon 31 January 2008?

No regrets given

70. Circular imports

<alexmilowski> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2008Jan/0040.html

Alex: Essentially, we want to get it right without describing a particular algorithm
... I took the text from the XML spec and tweaked it a bit
... The algorithm in the proposed Appendix G is based on Henry's proposal.

Norm: I'm happy with the changes to section 5, I'll need to study the appendix more

Alex: The appendix is non-normative, right?

Norm: Yes.

<ht> HST agrees

Richard: About the retreival URIs, if you did it naively, you might think that you had to go and fetch the document every time to see if its retreival URI winds up being the same as one you've already got.
... But in practice, if its literal URI is the same, you can assume its actual URI is the same too.

Alex: Do we have language elsewhere about consistency of resource?

Richard: Even if it did change, there's no gaurantee that you'll see it.

Norm: So we should say that in section 5

Richard: Either that, or some generral statement along the lines that Alex suggested

Norm: I think a general statement is probably the way to go

<MoZ> I think we cannot avoid caching neither

Alex: Maybe we could do a special case for import. Shouldn't we say that however you get a URI, the declarations will be consistent.

<scribe> ACTION: Alex to tweak the text of of p:import [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

95. XSLT pattern matching in p:viewport

Norm: I thought we were clear on 95, but yes we should be

<scribe> ACTION: Norm to check the clarity of the spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-xproc-minutes.html#action02]

96. Compound steps with empty subpipelines

Norm: Static error 27.

97. p:set-attributes and attributes with xmlns prefix

Richard: Namespaces don't appear in the attributes property in the infoset

Alex: I think we should allow users to set xmlns: attributes.
... Namespace fixup will correct user errors.

Richard: I don't think so.
... Namespaces aren't attributes as far as the infoset is concerned.

Alex: I think p:add-attribute could add namespaces.

Richard: Bad. Bad. Bad.

Henry: Here's the question: can you use xsl:attribute to add a namespace decl?

Norm: No.

Henry: Right, then add-attribute shouldn't either.

Alex: But you could still do it with a transform

Henry: I think my analysis holds

Norm: +1

Richard: The rule should be that you can't manipulate namespaces by manipulating namespace attributes

Henry: The only circumstance you need it for is when you want to create a prefix for a QName that you're going to use in a value

Alex: I think add-attribute needs a modification and set-attributes needs a clarification.

<scribe> ACTION: Alex to consider the attribute steps and make appropriate changes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-xproc-minutes.html#action03]

Richard: In a sense this is already implicit in the infoset conformance section.

Mohamed: I'm not sure I understand the path. The original question was do the namespace attributes get copied. The answer is 'no'

Alex: Right. We're going to clarify that set-attributes doesn't copy them and clean up the other steps too.

98. Typo in p:label-elements

Norm: Yep

99. Execution order of steps

Alex: Event/consequence ordering is determined by the connections.

Norm: What I recall is that if you mandated document order, then you'd have to make forward reference an error. But the impl can fix the order, so why make theuser move teh steps around?
... It seems an unnecessary burden on the user.

Henry: I still don't know what he means by "do things"

Some discussion of what ordering actually means

Richard: I think there are straightforward cases where it's natural to write in the pipeline using forward references.
... Consider a straightforward pipeline with an XSLT step in the middle where the stylesheet is generated. It's natural to put the stylesheet generation at the end of the pipeline.
... Is it always possible to write pipelines without forward references?

Norm: I think so.

Richard: Another way to say this is that the XML syntax is just one representation of the pipelien. It could also be represented with a box-and-arrow diagram.

Alex: We're all in agreement, right?
... Maybe a note?

<scribe> ACTION: Henry to reply and close the issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-xproc-minutes.html#action04]

Any other business?

Alex: We have comments that continue to straggle in.
... What is our plan?

Norm: We're going to do another last call, as soon as that's ready we'll push it out
... Until then, I don't see any harm in looking at the comments that come in.

Adjourned.

rrsange, set logs world-visible

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Alex to consider the attribute steps and make appropriate changes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Alex to tweak the text of of p:import [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to reply and close the issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-xproc-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to check the clarity of the spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/01/31 17:07:00 $