- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:07:30 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87vecpvc59.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/07/12-minutes
W3C[1]
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 74, 12 Jul 2007
Agenda[2]
See also: IRC log[3]
Attendees
Present
Paul, Rui, Alessandro, Alex, Norm, Andrew
Regrets
Richard, Henry
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* Topics
1. Accept this agenda?
2. Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
3. Next meeting: telcon 19 July 2007
4. Parameters and pipelines proposal
5. Remove p:empty as an option for XPath context
6. Catching errors
7. Rename "name" option on p:rename
8. Rename c:parameter-list to c:parameter-set
9. Step changes
10. Serialization
11. p:serialization
12. http-request
13. Any other business
* Summary of Action Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/07/12-agenda
Norm notes that he added a link for 2.1 and added a 2.6
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/07/05-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting: telcon 19 July 2007
We have continuing regrets from Richard and Henry. Also Rui for next week.
Parameters and pipelines proposal
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0127.html
Norm summarizes the proposal.
Any discussion?
Going once...
Accepted.
Remove p:empty as an option for XPath context
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0099.html
Norm suggests that we no longer allow the context to be empty.
Some discussion of what to do in the case where there's no primary input
port to default to and the expression is known not to need a context.
<MoZ> NOrm, what are you proposing for evaluating "$foo='2'"
Alessandro suggests binding to an empty document node.
Norm: I suggest we direct the editor to give that a try.
Accepted.
moz, do you want to call in to talk about p:map?
We'll skip 2.3 today until Mohamed can be present.
Catching errors
Norm summarizes.
Alex: Do we have a parking lot for future things?
Norm: Not at the moment.
... I suggest we setup a wiki page for that, at e.g., wiki.xproc.org.
<MoZ> +1 for wiki parking page
Norm wonders if the supporters are content for V2.
They appear to be.
We'll reconsider this for V2, no change for V1.
Rename "name" option on p:rename
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0110.html
<alexmilowski> + 1 to new-name
Norm summarizes.
Any discussion?
Any objections?
Accepted.
Rename c:parameter-list to c:parameter-set
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0126.html
Norm summarizes.
Any discussion?
Any objections?
Accepted.
Step changes
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0119.html
Alex: There's authentication, encoding stuff, and serialization options.
Is anything other than serialization controversial?
Serialization
Alex: p:http-request and p:store both serialize.
... XSLT2/XQuery1 Serialization describes how to control serialization.
... many are similar to XSLT 1
s/step we/spec we/
Norm: Do you think the complex serialization stuff is needed on
p:http-request?
Alex: I have had to control XML serialization; given that, I can see how I
might need to.
Norm: Don't I also then need it on escape-markup?
Alex: There are a few things that don't apply, but maybe.
Norm: I worry about the implementation burden, but there is a stand-alone
spec we can point to.
Alex: We could say that only XML was required.
Norm: I guess that would be ok.
Norm decides not to persue the "p:store" vs. "p:serialize" steps.
Alessandro: A slightly different look at it is that, at least in my mind,
implementors will want to reuse existing code.
... If they have an XSLT 2 engine, they'll be OK.
... For implementors with XSLT 1 engines, what are they going to do? Can
we limit the required set to just what's supported in XSLT 1?
Alex: I'd have to reread the serialization spec to find out.
Norm: Alex, can you look at that?
<scribe> ACTION: Alex to review the serialization spec to see if we can
define a set of parameter/value pairs that we require that happens to be
supported by XSLT 1 and XSLT 2. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/07/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01[11]]
Norm: Have we accepted these ideas in principle?
... I guess so.
p:serialization
Alex: I want to be able to reuse options on several steps.
... I propose a pipeline-level p:serialization element (like xsl:output)
to handle this case.
... Once you have a named p:serialization element, you can refer to it
from the p:outputs where you want it.
Norm: This is only for p:output elements on the p:pipeline, right?
Alex: Right.
Norm: Maybe we could turn it around and make it like p:log where
p:serialization points to the port it wants to be applied to.
Any further discussion?
Accepted.
Norm: What about character maps?
Alex: I left it out.
... That requires even more declarations in our pipeline.
Norm: I bet it'll come back, but I'm fine with leaving them out now.
... Please add an editorial note about it.
http-request
Norm: I saw the proposal for http-get, did you also change the
http-request?
Alex: I only added the serialization and authentication options and some
words about parsing HTML.
... The two issues I see are (1) is there some simplification for simple
GETs and (2) should this be required?
Norm: I thought we agreed to make it required.
General agreement.
Norm: I have real reservations about p:http-get.
Alex: I'm not sure I follow.
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jul/0056.html
Norm attempts to summarize Henry's desire for a simple http-request option
that just returns the response directly with no c:http-response/c:body
wrappers.
Alex: If we want an href option then I think we should look at expanding
what "p:load" does.
Scribe fails to capture some discussion
Norm: I guess we're splitting Henry's request in half: a simple result vs.
a simple request.
... I hear Alex in favor an attribute on c:http-request for providing a
simple response, but not on anything for providing a simple request.
Alex: Right.
Norm: So what distinguish a simple get from load is the authorization
stuff.
Alex: And http-request can handle non-XML stuff.
Norm: Ok, I think I'm happy with that. If you just want to do a simple
get, use p:load; if you want authorization or fancy encodings, get out the
big guns.
Alex: That sounds good to me.
Proposal: An attribute for a simple response from p:http-request, but
http-request does the whole deal.
Alex: And we clarify that p:load is expected to be able to do HTTP...
Accepted.
Any other business
Norm: I want to know what stands between us and last call.
... Please be prepared to enumerate the issues you know of next week.
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Alex to review the serialization spec to see if we can
define a set of parameter/value pairs that we require that happens to be
supported by XSLT 1 and XSLT 2. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/07/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01[13]]
[End of minutes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/07/12-agenda
[3] http://www.w3.org/2007/07/12-xproc-irc
[11] http://www.w3.org/2007/07/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[13] http://www.w3.org/2007/07/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[14] version 1.128 (CVS
log[15])
$Date: 2007/07/12 16:06:09 $
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 16:07:54 UTC