W3C

- DRAFT -

XML Processing Model WG

12 Nov 2014

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Norm, Jim, Vojtech
Regrets
Loren, Henry, Alex
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm

Contents


Accept this agenda?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-agenda

Accepted.

Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Nov/0004.html

Norm thanks Jim for taking minutes.

<jfuller> tbey were terrible

Accepted.

Next meeting

Proposed: 19 Nov 2014 does anyone have to give regrets?

No regrets heard.

Review of open action items

<scribe> No progress reported.

Jim's proposal to make p:inline optional

Vojtech: Two things. If you have PIs or comments, you need to have a p:inline, but what does it mean

<jfuller> https://xquery.github.io/xproc-specification/langspec/xproc20/head/diff.html#p.inline

Some discussion of what it means to have multiple top-level elements.

Norm: No, I don't think we should do that.
... For exactly the reasons that Vojtech raised, I think if we have multiple top-level elements, you need the p:inline wrapper.

Jim: I thought comments and PIs would always throw an error.

Vojtech: No, if there's only one top-level element, they're ok.

Jim: So instead of foreign element(s), you're saying foreign element (not plural) and go for the singular.

Vojtech: The spec of p:inline is any element, but we also allow PIs and comments around it.

Norm: I think if you have multiple documents, you need the wrapper.

Vojtech: At the moment, if you use p:inline then comments and PIs are ignored outside the p:inline elements.
... If you remove the wrapper, then they become part of the document.
... Another thing, at the moment the exclude-inline-prefixes attribute is on p:inline and p:input.
... But I think the p:inline should be optional in the other places as well. On output, on connections, etc.

Norm: I agree.

Jim: I didn't propose that because I was trying to make the change very narrow.

Norm: I think if the p:inline can be left out in one context, it should be legal to leave it out everywhere that it can occur.

Jim: What about expand-text?

Norm: I think that needs to be available on all of the possible parents of p:inline.

<scribe> ACTION: ACTION A-257-01 Jim to revise the p:inline proposal to cover all of the places where p:inline can occur and to handle expand-text as well as exclude-inline-prefixes. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

Norm's proposal to split the spec into two documents

-> https://ndw.github.io/specification/

Norm thinks he made it work.

<jfuller> +1

<jfuller> yes

Norm: Consensus is that we should do this. The editor asserts it's entirely editorial. No technical changes except putting p:template and p:in-scope-namespaces into the steps document.

Vojtech: There are also references to p:try and such. They are still in the language spec.

Norm: Yes.

Vojtech: The document could also be called something else; the compound steps are also "standard steps".
... I would expect them in the steps document, but that would probably not be as easy to do.

Norm: But if we moved them all into the steps document, we'd really be back to a single document...

Vojtech: I see that for p:declare-step or p:pipeline, but things like p:viewport or p:choose are more like standard steps that we provide out of the box.
... It's really just atomic steps.
... The main spec is compound steps and the rest of the language.

Norm: That's right.

Vojtech: On one level all these things like viewport and for-each are really just steps.

Norm: So should we wait on splitting...

Vojtech: No, but maybe we should consider moving viewport, for-each, etc. into the steps document.
... The second document is really a library of atomic steps; maybe that's ok.

<jfuller> I think its ok as well

Proposal: Accept the two-spec version as the new consensus draft.

No objections heard.

Accepted.

Norm: I will make a pull request and make it so.

Liam's message

Norm: It's a useful collection of first-time-user-concerns.

<jfuller> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Nov/0007.html

Norm: I propose that we make one-or-more issues out of these and see that we address them.

The WG walks through Liam's message, muses about the changes.

Any other business?

None heard.

Adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: ACTION A-257-01 Jim to revise the p:inline proposal to cover all of the places where p:inline can occur and to handle expand-text as well as exclude-inline-prefixes. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014/11/12 16:13:25 $