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

XProc Minutes 18 Oct 2007

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:12:29 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m24pgo5rma.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/18-minutes

W3C[1]

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 88, 18 Oct 2007

   Agenda[2]

   See also: IRC log[3]

Attendees

   Present
           Paul, Alessandro, Henry, Mohamed, Andrew, Norm

   Regrets

   Chair
           Norm

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Charter extension
         2. Review of action items
         3. Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted)
            output
         4. Comment 6: Bindings for pipeline inputs
         5. Comment 18: Scope of step types
         6. Comment 24: Passing PSVIs between steps
         7. Comment 7: Saxonica comments on sections 1 and 2
         8. Comment 12: Saxonica comments on sections 3 and 4
         9. Any other business
     * Summary of Action Items

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

   <ht> Norm, shall I start the call w/o you?

   <ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/18-agenda[4]

   <ht> scribenick: ht

   HST: Agenda approved

   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-minutes[5]

   HST: Minutes approved
   ... Next meeting 25 October
   ... NW apologies for 25 Oct and 1 Nov, HST to be in the chair _pro tem_
   ... Charter has been extended for 1 year

   PG: F2F agenda?

   NW: one day on comment processing, one day on the future, I guess

   PG: I find a detailed agenda helps folk to be prepared

   NW: Well, item 1 is "Read and be familiar with the details of the issues
   list"

   <scribe> scribenick: Norm

  Charter extension

   Extended 1 year.

  Review of action items

   A-86-01: Alex to review XSLT streaming requirements before the
   face-to-face.

   <scribe> Continued

   A-86-03: Henry to reply to the commenter (non-string parameters; issue 30)

   <scribe> Completed

   A-86-04: Henry to craft the prose to cover the defaulted output case

   <scribe> Continued

   A-87-01: Norm to take a stab at reconsidering the default inputs feature
   applying it only to ports that are not primary

   <scribe> Continued.

   A-87-02: Alex to propose some text about imports and circularity

   <scribe> Continued

   A-87-03: Norm to attempt to incorporate Richard's draft text about step
   type scope

   <scribe> Continued.

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

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

   <scribe> Continued pending Henry's action

  Comment 6: Bindings for pipeline inputs

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

   <scribe> Continued pending Norm's action

  Comment 18: Scope of step types

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

   <scribe> Continued pending Norm's action

  Comment 24: Passing PSVIs between steps

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#024

   Norm outlines the issue and summarizes Jeni's observed options

   Henry: I think we leave it impl. defined.

   Some discussion of how defaulted attributes fit in: probably covered by
   the spirit of the best efforts clause.

   Proposal: Leave it implementation-defined.

   Accepted.

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry will respond to the commenter on comment 24:
   passing PSVIs between steps. [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action01[10]]

  Comment 7: Saxonica comments on sections 1 and 2

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#007

   Norm reviews the points in Mike's message.

   Point 1: accepted.

   Point 2: changed validate-* to validate-with-*; accepted.

   <MoZ>
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0034.html[12]

   Point 3-6 are editorial.

   Point 7: rejected, also made a separate issue

   Point 8: discussion

   Henry: I think we're pretty clear that we're not answering this question.
   ... We're trying not to be too precise.

   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#input-output[13]

   Henry: No, that doesn't work. An XML document isn't an Infoset, the
   infoset is just a set of terms
   ... But maybe it's ok.
   ... Sure let's try this.

   Norm: What about A.3?

   Henry: Yes, that looks fine too.

   Norm: Anyone unhappy with the editor's resolution of Mike's point 8?

   None heard.

   Point 9:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Oct/0003.html[14]

   Norm: Anyone unhappy with the editor's resolution of Mike's point 9?

   None heard.

   That leaves some editorial clarifications, but I think we've covered the
   technical issues

  Comment 12: Saxonica comments on sections 3 and 4

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#012

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0023.html[16]

   Let's leave the "editorial" and "clarification" points to the editor
   unless they turn out not to be

   Henry: I'm prepared to skip to 7.
   ... I think he's right.

   Norm: I don't think these apply to the things *inside* the elements in the
   step

   Henry: So you meant "children" not "contains"? If so, you'll have to
   repeat it endlessly.

   Norm: Uhm...

   Henry: Can't we just say that these rules don't apply inside p:inline?

   Norm: Perhaps

   Some discussion about what constitutes a step.

   Norm: I think children would work.

   Henry: What about giving the fifth and sixth bullets a parallel
   construction
   ... If any element in the XProc namespace other than p:inline, or any
   step, has text node children...

   Norm: Sure, that would work for me.
   ... I think that resolves point 7.

   Point 8:

   Henry: I think replacing "within its container" by "immediately contained
   by that steps container"
   ... Or if we've formally defined subpipline as the immediately contained
   steps, then "the last step in document order in the subpipeline"

   Norm: I'm happy to attempt to clarify that.

   Point 11:

   Some of this is editorail.

   Norm: I think we have clarified that select only selects elements or
   documents.

   Henry: I've always said that select needs the same namespace fixup we
   already described.
   ... We've already re-worded 4.2 so there isn't a double "each" anymore.

   Norm: But that leaves "wrapped" and an explicit pointer to 2.6.1
   ... The select question points to 5.2 and aon through to p:input where
   it's covered.

   Henry: No, I don't think we want to make the reference to 2.6.1 explicit.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to see if the commenter agree's we've addressed his
   concerns. [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action02[17]]

   Point 12:

   Henry: I think we can replace "aggregated" with "concatentated" here.

   Norm: I'm willing to do that and see if it helps.

   Henry: The prose is still a bit terse.
   ... I think we should unpack it and make it more explicit.

   Norm: Ok.

   Point 13:

   Norm: We probably need to make the distinction between match and select
   more clear.

   Henry: Not that you need to make the point about match only matching
   element or document nodes here. There's no free ride.

   Norm: The WG's intent is clear but the prose needs to be clearer.
   ... Should we make it an error to select a document node?

   Henry: Yes.

   Accepted.

   Point 14:

   Norm: I think it can be a static error.

   Henry: Is this just a case where a processor could detect it statically if
   it wanted to?

   Norm: It could, but why not make it static?

   Henry: A select option to a step may be computed, so it has to be a
   dynamic error.

   Norm: But for select on our compound steps and for test on when, then they
   should be static errors.

   Henry: Let's try that and see if there's any pushback.

   Norm: Any objections?

   Accepted.

  Any other business

   Adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Henry will respond to the commenter on comment 24: passing
   PSVIs between steps. [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action01[18]]
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to see if the commenter agree's we've addressed his
   concerns. [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action02[19]]
    
   [End of minutes]

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

   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/18-agenda
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-irc
   [4] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/18-agenda
   [5] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-minutes
   [10] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0034.html
   [13] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#input-output
   [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Oct/0003.html
   [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0023.html
   [17] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action02
   [18] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [19] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action02
   [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
    log[21])
    $Date: 2007/10/18 16:11:09 $


Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 16:12:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT