- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:08:26 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2ve9way6d.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/27-minutes
W3C[1]
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 85, 27 Sep 2007
Agenda[2]
See also: IRC log[3]
Attendees
Present
Norm, Paul, Rui, Alessandro, Murray, Mohamed
Regrets
Michael, Richard, Henry
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* Topics
1. Accept this agenda?
2. Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
3. Next meeting: telcon 4 October 2007
4. Review of XSLT streaming specifications
5. p:add-xml-base
6. Scope of step types
7. Is a conformant processor supposed to raise xml:id or xml:base
errors
8. Wrapping of nodes into a document
9. <input> for <pipeline>
10. Scope of stpe names
11. Viewport
12. pipeline library
13. Saxonica comments, sections 1 and 2
14. Any other business
* Summary of Action Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/27-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/13-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting: telcon 4 October 2007
Murray gives regrets.
Review of XSLT streaming specifications
Mohamed: It's the requirements document that's ready for review.
Murray will take a look.
Norm: Thanks, Murray.
p:add-xml-base
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0160.html
Comments list:
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments.html[7]
<MoZ> here is the last requirements for XSLT Streaming
http://www.w3.org/mid/46F97ED6.90908@u-turnmediagroup.com[8]
Norm wonders what the intended semantics of the "all" option were.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to investigate the intended semantics of "all" on
p:add-xml-base [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action01[9]]
Scope of step types
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0155.html
Norm: I think we only meant for types declared in the pipeline and in the
imported libraries, not recursively.
General agreement.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to clarify the scope of step types [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action02[11]]
Is a conformant processor supposed to raise xml:id or xml:base errors
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0149.html
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?
Norm: No.
... Anyone want more aggressive rules in XProc?
No.
Wrapping of nodes into a document
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0148.html
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 what select can
select.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to clarify what select can select [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action03[14]]
<input> for <pipeline>
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0146.html
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 clarify the spec and follow up. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action04[16]]
Scope of stpe names
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0139.html
<MoZ> here :
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0142.html[18]
Norm: I'm content with Richard's editorial suggestion, anyone disagree?
Viewport
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0133.html
Norm: I think this got resovled in the thread
No one disagrees.
pipeline library
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0143.html
Norm: So the question is, if you hand a pipeline *library* to a processor
should it run a particular pipeline.
... 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.
<alexmilowski> +1
Murray: I don't think we should do this as an afterthought; and I don't
think we should do this.
... 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.
Saxonica comments, sections 1 and 2
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0022.html
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-...
<ruilopes> p: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?
<alexmilowski> validate-via-the-language-known-as-xml-schema
Accepted.
<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[22]]
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> "
<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[23]]
Any other business
None.
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] 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[24]]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to clarify the scope of step types [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action02[25]]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to clarify [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action03[26]]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to clarify the spec and follow up. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action04[27]]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to investigate the intended semantics of "all" on
p:add-xml-base [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action01[28]]
[NEW] 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[29]]
[End of minutes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/27-agenda
[3] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-irc
[7] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments.html
[8] http://www.w3.org/mid/46F97ED6.90908@u-turnmediagroup.com
[9] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[11] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action02
[14] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action03
[16] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action04
[18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0142.html
[22] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action05
[23] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action06
[24] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action06
[25] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action02
[26] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action03
[27] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action04
[28] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[29] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html#action05
[30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[30] version 1.128 (CVS
log[31])
$Date: 2007/09/27 16:07:32 $
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 16:09:17 UTC