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

XProc Minutes 11 May 2006

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:30:41 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87wtcswe8u.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/05/11-minutes.html


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 20, 11 May 2006


   See also: IRC log[3]


           Murray, Norm, Henry, Alessandro, Richard, Rui, Alex

           Andrew, Michael, Paul




     * Topics
         1. Accept this agenda?
         2. Accept minutes from the previous teleconference?
         3. Next meeting: 18 May 2006
         4. Face-to-face
         5. Review of open action items
         6. Issue 3089: What version/subset of XPath is used in conditionals?
         7. Issue 3198: Functional components?
         8. Issue 3199: How do pipeline parameters, inputs, and outputs
         9. Any other business?
     * Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/05/11-agenda.html


  Accept minutes from the previous teleconference?

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/05/04-minutes.html


  Next meeting: 18 May 2006

   Already regrets from: Andrew, Michael, Henry


   Please register: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38398/XProcFTF2/[6]

   Local arrangements: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/08/02-04-f2f.html[7]

   Norm hopes we can nail down the transport next week.

  Review of open action items

    1. A-19-01[8]: Alex to send mail describing his ideas about variables.
          * Continued
    2. A-19-02[9]: Norm to create an issue about the
       variable/parameter/input/output binding framework.
          * Completed
    3. A-18-01[10]: Alex to create an issue about the possibility of
       functional components
          * Completed
    4. A-17-02[11]: Murray to provide local arrangements info for August
          * Completed
    5. A-13-01[12]: MSM to draft a complete table; ETA: 15 June 2006
          * Continued.

  Issue 3089: What version/subset of XPath is used in conditionals?

   -> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3089

   MoZ: are you trying to dial in and not getting through the bridge?

   Norm: Three possibilities, 1) use someone else's streaming subset, 2)
   invent our own, 3) use full XPath and leave it as a QoI issue

   Alex: Although I use a streaming subset, I think that's an optimization. I
   think we shouldn't have a subset.

   Norm: I can find off-the-shelf full XPath 1.0 implementations, so I think
   that answer makes it easiest to get started
   ... Is there anyone that thinks we need to define a subset?

   Henry: I'm uncomfortable, but I'm willing to leave it for CR.

   Norm: That works for me.

   Richard: Do we have a good idea of what circumstances these XPaths are
   used in

   Norm: Off the top of my head, we've got: conditionals, peepholing

   Richard: Also the "replacement" component
   ... It's possible that that's a component by itself.

   Norm: so those wouldn't have to be the same.

   Richard: I think I'm happy for it to be full XPath 1.0 and I can detect
   some streamable queries.

   Proposal: We will use XPath 1.0 in our language

   Alessandro: I think it will be interesting to have XPath 1.0 vs XPath 2.0

   Alessandro: At least in the environment I am working in, off-the-shelf 2.0
   implementations are easy to come by.

   Norm: Do you have a use case in mind for pipeline conditionals?

   Alessandro: Not off the top of my head

   Alex: We could declare what version of XPath the pipeline uses and
   implementations can reject pipelines they can't support.

   Richard: Isn't it the case that if you have XPath 2.0, you have to worry
   about whether the data has schema type and so on.
   ... I know that there are XSLT 2.0 implementations that don't support the
   schema stuff and can give different answers.
   ... If we introduce XPath 2.0 are we introducing new levels of

   Norm: Yes, I think they would.
   ... This seems useful and interesting, but not necessary.

   Norm observes, in response to Richard, that having XPath 2.0 would mean
   that the pipeline engine would have to be able to import schemas

   Alessandro: In environments where 2.0 is available, requiring XPath 1.0
   seems like a burden

   Norm prefers a single choice for interoperability

   Alex: By the time we become a recommendation, we have to have a cohesive
   store around XSLT 2.0, XPath 2.0, XQuery, etc.
   ... I don't think we can push that to V.next, we need to come out with a
   recommendation that works well with those technologies.

   Norm: Wow. Ok.

   Norm worries that dealing with those things in 1.0 makes our goal of
   finishing this year hopeless.

   Alessandro: I agree that there's complexity, but I think we should try
   just a little bit harder to try to accommodate schemas and XPath 2.0
   ... It might be the case that we come to the conclusion that we can't do
   it in 1.0

   Murray: I would tend to agree with Norm, let's do something we can
   accomplish in the timeframe we set out, even if it isn't' as grand and
   robust and wonderful as we might achieve in the fullness of time.
   ... We can move onto the next stage afterwards.

   Norm: Can Alex/Alessandro make some proposals to see if you can convince
   us that using schemas, XPath 2.0, etc. is achievable in our timeframe?

   Alessandro: yes

   Alex: yes

   Proposal: We will assume full XPath, not a streaming subset, in the
   language (unless and until we get pushback from implementors)


  Issue 3198: Functional components?

   -> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3198

   We've already made a decision about this, this issue is just for the

  Issue 3199: How do pipeline parameters, inputs, and outputs interact?

   -> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3199

   We don't really have any clear ideas about exactly how these things fit
   together yet

   Norm reviews Richard's ideas that started this

   Richard: Fundamentally, it must be possible to get some output into a
   ... The simplest way to define a parameter is to give a literal value.
   ... The next way up would be to give an XPath and the output of some other
   component to apply it to. It would evaluate the expression and the result
   would be the value of the variable
   ... So the temporary file component could generate a document and the
   XPath expression could be "."
   ... This means that all these things are connected by plumbing.
   ... Other people have mentioned at various times mechanisms for having
   variables that are in scope, etc. But I think the simple method is a good
   starting point.

   Norm: I had in mind setting variables in general being specified with
   XPaths (so that pipeline params could be composed from command line params
   (for example) and others.
   ... I was thinking of evaluating them all with an empty document node as
   the context.
   ... Extending that to allow them to specify an input document makes sense.
   ... Is that sufficient?

   Henry: It ought to be possible in a pipeline definition to say that the
   value of some step parameter is referred to at the pipeline level

   Scribe isn't sure that he recorded Henry correctly

   Norm: Parameters could have two attributes: value and select for literal
   values and XPath expressions

   Some discussion about how these things get connected together

   Richard: I think the 90% case is that variables are constants. It's
   reasonable for it to be slightly complicated.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to write up his thoughts on parameters and inputs
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/11-xproc-minutes.html#action02[16]]

   Alex: This is related to the variables action that I have

   Richard: It would be nice if this mechanism was extensible to being able
   to having different variables in scope in different parts of the pipeline.
   ... But it's not immediately clear to me how it is. But maybe it is.

  Any other business?



Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to write up his thoughts on parameters and inputs
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/11-xproc-minutes.html#action02[17]]
   [End of minutes]


   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/05/11-agenda.html
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/05/11-xproc-irc
   [6] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38398/XProcFTF2/
   [7] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/08/02-04-f2f.html
   [8] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/05/04-minutes.html#action01
   [9] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/05/04-minutes.html#action02
   [10] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/04/27-minutes.html#action01
   [11] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/04/20-minutes.html#action02
   [12] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/03/23-minutes.html#action01
   [16] http://www.w3.org/2006/05/11-xproc-minutes.html#action02
   [17] http://www.w3.org/2006/05/11-xproc-minutes.html#action02
   [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[18] version 1.127 (CVS
    $Date: 2006/05/11 19:18:30 $

Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 19:30:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:39 UTC