- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:28:34 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <878xibuwql.fsf@nwalsh.com>
[Scribe apologizes profusely for tardiness.]
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/11/09-minutes.html
W3C[1]
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 43, 9 Nov 2006
Agenda[2]
See also: IRC log[3]
Attendees
Present
Norm, Alex, Paul, Rui, Alessandro, Michael, Richard, Henry,
Mohamed, Murray
Regrets
Andrew
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* Topics
1. Accept this agenda?
2. Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
3. Next meeting: telcon 16 Nov 2006
4. Technical agenda
5. Any other business?
* Summary of Action Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/11/09-agenda.html
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/11/02-minutes.html
Accepted.
Next meeting: telcon 16 Nov 2006
Michael possible regrets for 16 Nov
Technical agenda
Norm: The question of declare-* or not is the first big issue
... Any strong feelings?
Henry: I liked the idea in the XML representation of XML Schema that we
used the same element types for both declaring and referencing elements,
attributes and a few other things.
... In general, I have not found that to be a source of confusion, but it
is occasionally critizised.
... But I thought it was a good idea to keep them separate in our
language.
Richard: I say get rid of them.
... The divison between them doesn't seem to line up neatly enough.
Sometimes declare means declare-and-use so there's no advantage in being
explicit about it.
Henry: That's not true of parameters.
... It's always the case that a given locus with respect to parameters is
either a declaration or a binding, never both.
Norm: In the case where you're assigning defaults, it looks exactly like
declare-and-use
Henry: I'm not sure I see it that way, but I understand how you might.
... Is there value in keeping the distinction for parameter but not
input/output?
Michael: Can someone type an example?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/alternate/#ex.p.for-each
Norm: The input element both declares the existence of a port named "chap"
and binds it to the given URI.
We need more examples.
<MSM> when you speak of a port named "chapter", do you mean a port named
"chap" ?
Henry: That's not quite right, viewport does more than that. But we tried
hard to fix that in Ontario and didn't find a better proposal.
<MSM> I don't see anything that looks like it's declaring a port named
"chapter"
Yes, I meant to say "chap"
Micheal: It's not really a reference, it's an initializer.
Richard: You're right. It's assignment.
Consider: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/alternate/#dt-input-here[7]
<ht> HST maintains that these things are a blend of input (source/href
attrs) and declare-output (name attr)
Micheal: It seems to me that this mixture could lead an outside observer
to believe that we don't have our fundamental notions well understood.
Henry: That's where we were in Ontario where we did finally get the
semantics clear and agreed there were two things going on plus some
special meanings, but that syntactically, it was obnoxious to have
different bits of syntax to bear the different notions.
Micheal: I'm not understanding the distinctions.
Richard: The distinctions are in the attribute names and not in the
element names.
... It seems really strange to distinguish three cases with two different
elements.
<ht> HST agrees with richard -- name= establishes something input ports
can bind to, source/href/etc. bind to a document source
Richard: What we have now seems neither rigerous nor convenient.
Norm: I've heard some support for removing the declare-* forms, some
"concurs", and no opposition.
<MSM> [My instinct is that when things are semantically distinct they
should have different GIs.
<MSM> If that means we end up with a cumbersome syntax, then it sometimes
means we aren't defining the right abtractions.
Norm: We shall go with a draft that does not have the declare-* forms for
publication on 17 November?
<MSM> And sometimes it doesn't. I am not sure which class of case this
is.]
Accepted.
Norm: Any other issues that people feel must bee resolved before
publication?
None heard.
Norm: Alex published a list of components this morning but it's unlikely
that we'll have time to review them. Does anyone object to leaving them
out of the 17 Nov draft?
Mohamed: I think we should put some of them in.
Murray: Would it be reasonable to produce a companion note that we can
work on in parallel?
Norm: No, I don't think that's practical.
Richard: Looking through Alex's list, it appears that some are obviously
good and some that need more discussion.
... I think it would be good to put the most uncontroversial ones into the
draft.
Henry: I nominate 1.1 through 1.6 with one change.
... The change being that the XSLT component should be clear about what
version of XSLT.
Norm: What about 1.7?
Henry: No, that raises security issues.
Alex: That's no different from the endpoints of a pipeline.
Henry: Yes it is, they're outside the spec.
Murray: I don't think we need firm agreement before we put something in
the draft.
... I think we should include it all if we're going to put it in.
Richard: I'm not sure I agree.
... When we put the WD out, we want to really direct attention to the core
of it.
... What about serialize and parse?
Alex: Yes, we've talked about them, but those are probably somewhat
controversial.
Murray: There's a middle ground, include an editorial note to say which
are firmer and which are softer.
Norm: Proposal: we incorporate 1.1-1.6 in the 17 November draft.
Murray: Point of order: Alex provided the whole list.
... why are we rejecting the whole list?
Henry: I don't have any objection at all.
The scribe considers how to deal with this
Proposal: Include section 1 of Alex's component list in the 17 November
draft.
Accepted.
Proposal: Include section 2 of Alex's component list in the 17 November
draft.
Henry, Mohamed, Richard, object. Rejected.
Proposal: Include section 3 of Alex's component list in the 17 November
draft.
Henry objects.
Richard: It has some value in that it shows quite different kinds of
components.
Henry withdraws his objection.
Accepted.
Proposal: Include all of Alex's component list in the 17 November draft.
Henry objects.
Alex: What's wrong with section 2?
Richard: Section 1 has obvious things, section 3 has fairly
straightforward things that are somewhat different, but section 2 has some
controversial things.
s/tto/too
Mohamed: I suggest that we add 2.3.
Norm: The chair would prefer not to address individual cases for 17 Nov
Henry: What about parameters?
... I'm not sure about Jeni's most recent post, but I think it should be
possible to refer to parameters from other parameters.
... Is it obvious that we can do that, and how?
Alex: It's not clear, but you do the $-thing.
Norm: I think that it's unclear, but that we did address it.
Henry: I'd like to encourage the editor to say something about that in the
17 Nov draft.
Alex: What about references to parameters declared on the same component?
Henry: I'd like to be able to make $x the default value for $y.
Norm proposes to deliver a new working draft by close-of-business (EST) on
Tuesday that will be published on 17 November. Unless someone objects on
the 16 Nov call, that draft will be published.
Accepted.
Any other business?
None.
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/11/09-agenda.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/11/09-xproc-irc
[7] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/alternate/#dt-input-here
[8] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[9] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[8] version 1.127 (CVS
log[9])
$Date: 2006/11/16 17:25:03 $
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:57:16 UTC