W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2006

Minutes for XProc WG telcon of 6 Apr 2006

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:49:27 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <873bgp5cx4.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See also: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/04/06-minutes.html

   W3C[1]

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

6 Apr 2006

   Agenda[2]

   See also: IRC log[3]

Attendees

   Present
           Alessandro, Andrew, Henry, Mohamed, Norm, Rui

   Regrets
           Erik, Jeni, Michael, Richard, Paul

   Chair
           Norm

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Accept this agenda?
         2. Accept minutes from the previous teleconference?
         3. Next meeting: 13 Apr telcon
         4. Publication status
         5. Face-to-face meeting: 2-4 August 2006, north of Toronto
         6. Starting a working draft
         7. Richard's proposal
         8. Conditionals and sub-pipelines
         9. What about XPath 1 vs. XPath 2?
        10. Any other business?
     * Summary of Action Items

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  Accept this agenda?

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/04/06-agenda.html

   Accepted.

  Accept minutes from the previous teleconference?

   -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006Mar/0069.html

   Accepted.

  Next meeting: 13 Apr telcon

   Any regrets?

   No regrets given

  Publication status

   Norm submitted the transition request and got approval.

   Norm submitted the publication request dated 11 Apr 2006

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/WD-xproc-requirements-20060411/

  Face-to-face meeting: 2-4 August 2006, north of Toronto

   Norm proposes: who can commit to attending?

   Rui: unsure; Norm: yes; Alessandro: unsure (also for Erik); Henry: yes;
   Mohamed: unsure, but probably; Andrew: no; Paul: yes; Henry says Alex,
   Michael, Jeni say yes; Richard: unsure

   Tally: 7=yes; 5=unsure; 1=no

   Proposed: we will meet in Toronto on the dates specified.

   Accepted.

   Henry points out that formally we can't decide to do this, all we can do
   is ask the CG to allow us. No one seriously expects the CG to say anything
   but "yes"

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to get this into the CG calendar [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2006/04/06-xproc-minutes.html#action01[7]]

  Starting a working draft

   The chair asks if we have a volunteer editor.

   Norm volunteers.

   Norm warns that editing, chairing, and taking minutes may prove too much
   for one person. He suggests that Henry, Michael, and perhaps others may
   get called upon to take minutes.

   Norm wonders if rotating the minute taking is the right thing.

  Richard's proposal

   -> http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/pipeline.html

   Norm wonders if it makes sense to consider Jeni's proposal of passing URIs
   instead of documents around.

   Henry doesn't think passing filenames (URIs) around is really going to
   work.

   Henry: Jeni's story could be read either way (as passing filenames or
   using filenames)
   ... I'm still interested in thinking about this in terms of giving local
   names to things (inputs/outputs) and using those names to refer to them.

   Norm: With respect to giving names to local things, did you mean inputs
   and outputs

   Henry: Yes, but I also mean static resources/secondary inputs/whatever you
   want to call them.
   ... In the pure piped ontology which Richard offered at the f2f, there is
   a qualitative difference between an XSLT component that has one pipe
   coming in and one going out and a parameter which is the name of a static
   stylesheet and an XSLT component that has two pipes coming in and one
   going out.

   Norm: My proposal, to unify these, is to allow a shortcut for a
   "read-from-URI" component that attaches to the stylesheet input pipe.
   ... Do you see any problem with that approach?

   Henry: No, but I'm still swinging back and forth between thinking of the
   pipeline runtime as a resource manager and the pure dataflow model.

   Norm: I tend to swing back and forth as well. I hope that we don't have to
   pick one.
   ... The resource manager view has the problem of dealing with a pipe that
   contains a sequence of otherwise anonymous docments.

   Henry: Local names are just conveniences. They are single documents or
   doucment streams as appropriate.
   ... The only interesting case is when you use a non-local name.
   ... In MT pipe, the convention is if you use a #-ed name, it just plugs
   together. If however it's a primary input/output connection and you give
   it a non-#'d name, then you get the single document if it's one or the
   last document if it's a sequence.
   ... There's no clear answer to the question of what does the label mean if
   a sequence of documents is addresed by a lable in the resource-manager
   view.

   Norm ponders the idea of a resource manager that handles a collection

   Norm suggests the fragment question as a next reasonable point to discuss

   Norm describes the situation as an interoperability issue (since some
   implementations might not even notice and others might fall over)

   Henry: It's entirely reasonable for some implementations to fall over if
   you pass anything other than real XML "Document"s .

   Norm expresses a view that either the pipeline author has to fix it, or
   the pipeline engine has to fix it.

   Norm: I suggest for V1 that we say it's the pipeline author's problem

   Henry: works for me

   Norm wonders if the rest of the group agrees

   Rui: I believe that just documents is good enough for me.

   No one objects.

   Proposal: only XML 1.x documents (proper Documents in the XML sense) pass
   between components; if you need to pass something else in your pipeline,
   the pipeline author has to wrap and unwrap as necessary.

   Accepted.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to begin summarizing the points of consensus
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/06-xproc-minutes.html#action02[9]]

  Conditionals and sub-pipelines

   Norm: Richard proposed a single standard conditional that takes a document
   and an XPath, is that enough?

   Norm wonders if the WG thinks that's all we need

   Henry: If you need something really complicated, you can write an
   arbitrarily complicated computation that produces a document.
   ... And then switch on that conditional.

   Proposal: The pipeline conditional component is XPath expression over
   document. If you need more, build a document and use that?

   Accepted.

  What about XPath 1 vs. XPath 2?

   Murray: We could put the statement in terms of the available processor.

   Norm suggests that won't work

   Henry: Several possibilities:
   ... 1. Use a convention for naming XPath expressions that are the values
   of attributes; xpath=, xpath1=, or xpath2=
   ... A question we have to address is, are we going to subset XPath in
   order to guarantee that it isn't hard to do this.
   ... I think we should subset.

   Henry proposes that the XPath expressions that you can use in conditionals
   to being ones that are streamable

   <MoZ> ht, what about attribute minxpathversion="1.0" to parse

   Henry: bearing in mind again that if you need the full power of XPath,
   then you can use an XSLT processor to build a document ove rwhich a
   streaming test will succeed.

   Alessandro: We can say that the expression is going to be XPath 1 or 2 and
   the engine can analyze the expression and stream if it wants to.
   Otherwise, it can just run a full XPath engine

   Norm asks if Alessandro is opposed to the subset

   Alessandro: Yes

   Henry: The problem I have is that it puts a huge burden on the implementor
   for functionality that we've already determined most users won't ever use

   Norm: My concern is inventing the subset. Do you think the XML Schema
   schema subset is appropriate.

   Henry: Not quite.
   ... The thing that's missing is [@foo]

   Norm: So the tradeoff is inventing a subset or using an off the shelf
   processor. Or is the problem really the analysis for streaming?

   Henry: The analysis is hard. Can we float a trial balloon and examine the
   possibility of using that in V1?
   ... Two issues for V.next are, should we accept any XPath or should we
   require people to detect a certain class as streamable

   Norm: Why detect? Non streaming will always work.

   Henry: One of the crucial things about a viewport is that the XPath
   expression be streamable because that's how you deal with documents that
   are too large to read into memory.
   ... Conditionals are not the only place where XPath expressions are going
   to turn up.
   ... It seems plausible to try to tell a consistent story.

   Norm: I agree, I don't want XPaths on different components to have a
   different flavor.

   Henry: Maybe the regex for detecting the streaming subset isn't too hard.

   Norm ponders the plausibility of using a regex

   Henry: I think a regex could detect the the Schema subset

   Norm objects to the idea of *requiring* a processor to support streaming

   Norm proposes that we take the XPath 1/2/subset question to email

  Any other business?

   Alessandro: Did we have a conversation about setting up bugzilla

   Norm: Yes

   -> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/

   <Alessandro> Excellent

   Norm will make the XPath question an issue as an example

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to begin summarizing the points of consensus [recorded
   in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/06-xproc-minutes.html#action02[11]]
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to get this into the CG calendar [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2006/04/06-xproc-minutes.html#action01[12]]
   **
   [End of minutes]

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/04/06-agenda.html
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/04/06-xproc-irc
   [7] http://www.w3.org/2006/04/06-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [9] http://www.w3.org/2006/04/06-xproc-minutes.html#action02
   [11] http://www.w3.org/2006/04/06-xproc-minutes.html#action02
   [12] http://www.w3.org/2006/04/06-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[13] version 1.127 (CVS
    log[14])
    $Date: 2006/04/07 20:44:34 $

Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 20:49:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:47 GMT