See also: IRC log
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-agenda
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes
Accepted.
No regrets heard.
ACTION-2009-01-29-01 completed
Mohamed: I didn't see very much
in common between our specs. They're mostly using binary
offsets.
... There are a few others that go inside ZIP to check for
files.
Norm: So you didn't see anything that seemed out of the ordinary?
Mohamed: They're using some new
space characters and they're doing a case-insensitive
comparison in some places.
... I'll be watching those things.
Norm: It doesn't sound like there's anything we as a WG need to comment on.
Mohamed: I don't think so.
ACTION-2009-01-29-02 continued
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C031
Norm: This is about attempts to redefine steps in the p: namespace.
Vojtech: I thought err:XS0036 would cover it.
Norm: Yes, but I think we also want the error to cover the case of declaring p:foo
Vojtech: Ok, then we don't have an error for that.
Norm: I think we should just create a new error for this, any objections?
None heard.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C059
This is about the term "document sequence". Should we define it?
Norm: I've never thought we meant more or less than what the English language words mean.
Vojtech: If we have a formal
definition of sequence, then we'd need to define other
things.
... The word sequence is almost the definition.
Alex: Since the term sequence in
XQuery/XPath 2 has a particular concept, perhaps we need a
definition is looser.
... XPath 2 has a bunch of loaded semantics that we don't want
to inherit.
Norm: True, you never get an XPath 2.0 "sequence" from our "sequence of documents".
Some discussion about the fact that you can't actually access our sequences as a XPath 2.0 sequence.
Norm: Does anyone think we need to try to tie this down?
Henry: I think it's likely to be harder to get right than to say nothing about it. It's very hard to get right.
Mohamed: Especially if you want to have room to do parallel optimization.
Vojtech: In XQuery (and XSLT) we do say that the sequence becomes the default collection.
Norm: But that's a collection not
a sequence.
... I propose that we close this with no action.
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C077
Norm: The request here is that we support the 'text' serialization method.
Alex: I think this is a quality-of-implementation issue. There's nothing that prevents implementations from doing more.
Mohamed: I agree. I think XML serialization is the bare minimum. Getting text right is actually quite hard.
Norm: Anyone want to argue for including more than XML as mandatory?
None heard.
Norm: I propose that we decline and leave other methods as implementation-defined.
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C080
Norm attempts to summarize.
Norm: I just don't know if useful headers can be associated with a body.
Vojtech: I think the body can have arbitrary headers. That's what the text of the step says.
Alex: I think you're right.
Norm: That makes me want to put a wrapper around each collection of (header*,body), but maybe it's too late for that.
Alex: There's more work that you have to do to encode the pieces.
Norm: I just wish we had c:part wrappers around them, but I don't think we can do that now.
Vojtech: We don't handle nested multipart bodies either.
Norm: So I guess the proposal is to fix the grammar so that it allows a mixture of headers and bodies.
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C081
Norm attempts to summarize.
Norm: I think the intent was to flip the 2nd and 3rd paras of 7.1.10.4 and make the "translation of the text into a Unicode character sequence" only apply to non-XML media types.
Mohamed: I think that was the intent.
Alex: The intersection between
these two paragraphs is not zero.
... If you have an XML media type or a text type, then you can
make a sequence of characters. If it's an XML media type, then
you should parse it.
Norm: So this is intended to be two-part process.
Alex: Maybe the right thing to do
here is leave most of that first sentence and just at the end
say that you're supposed to construct a sequence of
characters.
... Make the part about making a c:body a separate part.
Norm: What I hear is that the
intent is to get Unicode characters first, then parse them if
it's an XML media type.
... Anyone disagree?
None heard.
Norm: I propose we get our editor to fix this.
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C084
Norm: This is about what should happen if you hand a random XML document to a processor.
Vojtech: I think it should be separate static error.
Norm: My concern is: should we mandate the behavior or say that it's implementation defined.
Mohamed: Use XPointer if you want to embed pipelines.
Vojtech: Importing would be a problem too.
Norm: I think the proposal is make it a new static error if the pipeline document doesn't have a root of p:pipeline, p:declare-step, or p:library.
Mohamed: yep.
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C087
Norm: I think some examples would
be useful, perhaps in a non-normative appendix.
... Does anyone else think that would be valuable?
Vojtech: I have problems with understanding all the details.
Mohamed: If you have explicit connections, why do you have to reorder them?
Norm: Only so that you can get the execution order right.
Mohamed: I think reorder and
execution order are different things.
... I'm trying to find out why we're trying to make the process
harder than necessary.
Vojtech: So is there a use case for writing the steps out of order?
Mohamed: Only to make authoring easier.
Some discussion of how to achieve the order.
Norm: Make the implicit connections explicit, then look for cycles. If you find a cycle, the author loses. If you don't, then pick one of the partial orders and you're good to go.
Vojtech: Ok, I'm satisfied for now.
Norm: In that case, I think we should just close this without action.
Accepted.
None heard.
Adjourned