W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > October 2007

XProc Minutes 11 Oct 2007

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:08:17 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2k5pty6q6.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 87, 11 Oct 2007


   See also: IRC log[3]


           Norm, Paul, Alessandro, Murray, Andrew, Alex, Rui, Richard





     * Topics
         1. Accept this agenda?
         2. Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. Next meeting 18 Oct 2007
         4. Review of action items:
         5. Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted)
         6. Comment 1: An unfulfilled requirement maybe? (p:exec)
         7. Comment 6: Bindings for pipeline inputs
         8. Comment 18: Scope of step types
         9. Any other business.
     * Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/04-minutes


  Next meeting 18 Oct 2007

   Richard gives regrets.

  Review of action items:

   A-86-01: Continued

   A-86-02: Completed.

   A-86-03: Continued

   A-86-04: Continued

   A-86-05: Completed.

   A-86-06: Completed.

  Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#029

   <scribe> Continued to the next meeting.

  Comment 1: An unfulfilled requirement maybe? (p:exec)

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#001


   Also: the wrap-*-lines options

   Norm: Any discussion?

   Richard: What about the syntax of cwd?

   Norm: Like command, it ought to accept either form of slash

   Proposal: Adopt this as a new optional step?


   Richard: Given that it's optional; some platform might only implement it
   partially, is that allowed?

   Norm: What sort of optional?

   Richard: As a fictitious example, imagine an example where cwd doesn't
   make any sense.

   Alex: If that's the case, we should make it a dynamic error.

   Richard: Yes, but that's probably already the case.

   Alex: I think this is a broader quesiton about partial implementation of
   optional steps.

   Norm: I think the broader question of partially implemented optional steps
   is different.

   Richard: An impl could provide a "conformant" flag that didn't offer the
   partially implemented steps.

  Comment 6: Bindings for pipeline inputs

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#006


   That's Norm's example of why he wants this; at least two folks were

   Richard: I had plans to have the primary input to a pipeline come from
   stdin; if I have to provide a default if its not there, I don't see how to
   do that.

   Murray: If the input binding comes from an input decl and you override it
   on the command line, what do you do inside the pipeline to designate that?

   Norm: I use the port name on the command line.

   Henry: I think that's the way we intended to do the bindings from the

   Murray: The other way to think of it is to say that the pipeline binds to
   something passed on the command line.

   Some confusion about the distintion between a default binding for a named
   port and a defaulted port.

   Murray: I'm confused by the use of the word default. You want a binding
   for a port name to a source on the command line.

   Richard: The impl. has to provide that.
   ... This defaulting is a way for a pipeline author to say what happens if
   the user *doesn't* provide the binding.

   Norm: Coming back to Richard's question, if your implement always binds
   stdin to the p:pipeline's primary input port.

   Richard: Ok. So in my case, the pipeline author's default would never come
   into play.

   Henry: My impl works the same way wrt the stdin binding to the primary
   ... This just means implementations have to have syntax (command line, or
   whatever) to specify all three possibilities: bind to a document, bind to
   stdin, or use the pipeline-specified default.
   ... AFAICS, the only occasion I can see for using this is to have a
   pipeline with a fixed input. And we already have a mechanism for
   supporting that.

   Norm: The other need is pipeline configurations.

   Henry: Yes, I can imagine feeling different about this for secondary
   inputs than primary ones.

   Murray: I'm increasingly confused. It seems like you're trying to put a
   lot of process control on the command line.
   ... Putting stuff outside the pipeline when it could be inside seems to
   defeat the purpose of a pipeline language.
   ... You can do all this in your pipeline.

   Richard: How do you implement the conditionality?

   Murray: I thought I could examine if I've got content on an input port.

   Some discussion of how XProc and XSLT differ...

   Further discussion about how bindings should be done on the command line
   or whether the spec should say.

   Alex: Would it help to distinguish between the top-level invocation of a
   pipeline and calling the pipeline as a step?
   ... So the default bindings could be considered separate from the

   Norm: Perhaps...

   <richard> this seems to be even further opposed to what murray wants

   Alex: This is metadata about the pipeline defaults.

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to say "OK"

   Henry: With the clarification that this story only applies to top-level
   pipelines, not to pipelines being run as steps, (with some complication
   about what it means if this is used in a library)
   ... I think we've thrashed this to death; I think it may be more trouble
   than it's worth, but let's see. So I'm cautiously in favor.

   Alex: I'm confused: in favor of what?

   Henry: In favor of clarifying that this is allowed and what the spec
   ... And it only means that when being invoked as a primary pipeline and
   ignored when invoked as a step.

   Norm: Is the next logical step for me to attempt to clarify this in the
   spec and see if we like the results?

   Alessandro: I think this would lose a lot of its utility if you could only
   do this at the top level.

   Henry: The interaction between that and the unbound primary input would be
   very unclear.

   Norm attempts to suggest that it can never occur, but Richard points out
   that the default binding is only for primary input ports.

   Richard: I'd be happier with it if defaults were only allowed on
   non-primary input ports. That would resolve the issue for steps that were
   never called. It would resolve the unnaturalness wrt stdin/stdout.
   ... The point of an input port being primary is that it's the one that
   gets connected up by default.

   Murray: I'd like to observe that XProc doesn't need to do everything. What
   you're trying to do with processing foo.xml intead of langspec.xml could
   be done with a shell script.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to take a stab at reconsidering the feature applying
   it only to ports that are not primary. [recorded in

  Comment 18: Scope of step types

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#018

   Norm: I'm tempted to adopt Richard's text and see how it goes.


   Richard: Pipelines are scopes unto themselves, they never export things
   outside them.
   ... Pipeline libraries do export their internals.

   Murray: I think it'll be useful to have a trivial example that shows the

   Richard: One of my messages did have some examples.


   Some question of circularity of imports.

   <scribe> ACTION: Alex to propose some text about imports and circularity
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action02[15]]

   Richard: This isn't literally circularity, it's a place where the tree
   joins up again.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to attempt to incorporate Richard's draft text.
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action03[16]]

  Any other business.



Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Alex to propose some text about imports and circularity
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action02[17]]
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to attempt to incorporate Richard's draft text.
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action03[18]]
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to take a stab at reconsidering the feature applying it
   only to ports that are not primary. [recorded in
   [End of minutes]


   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-agenda
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-irc
   [11] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0049.html
   [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0017.html
   [15] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action02
   [16] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action03
   [17] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action02
   [18] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action03
   [19] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[20] version 1.128 (CVS
    $Date: 2007/10/11 16:07:24 $

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 16:08:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:44 UTC