W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > October 2008

XProc Minutes 2 October 2008

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:01:25 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2iqsbrkwq.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/10/02-minutes

W3C[1]

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 127, 02 Oct 2008

   Agenda[2]

   See also: IRC log[3]

Attendees

   Present
           Rui, Paul, Henry, Richard, Andrew, Norm, Mohamed

   Regrets

   Chair
           Norm

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Namespace binding examples
         2. 008
         3. 032
         4. 033
         5. 034
         6. Where are we?
         7. Test suite
         8. Any other business?
     * Summary of Action Items

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

   <ht> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/10/02-agenda.html[4]

   <ht> Next meeting: 9 October, no regrets noted

   <ht> Minutes accepted as posted

  Namespace binding examples

   <ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#opt-param-bindings[5]

   ->
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2008Sep/0024.html

   Henry: I read it again and while it was complex, that complexity stems
   from the complexity of the feature, I think.
   ... I was left feeling that I wish we didn't have to do this.

   Norm: But we do...
   ... if anyone has any specific suggestions, I'd be happy to try, but I've
   done all I can.

   Mohamed: I think the examples are fine; I think it could be simpler, but
   mostly I just don't want users to be confused.

   Norm: I think most users will never need this, and hopefully by the time
   they do, there will be nice tutorials somewhere.
   ... Proposal: we're done, the revised prose is fine.

   Accepted.

  008

   Norm: This was a comment RELAX NG step. Henry pushed a little bit about
   APIs. And I went off and took a closer look.

   Norm summarizes his email.

   Norm: Err, dtd-id-idref-errors should be dtd-id-idref-warnings

   Henry: Works for me.

   Proposal: Accept Norm's suggestions, close the issue.

   Accepted.

  032

   Norm summarizes the thread.

   Proposal is in:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2008Sep/0044.html[7]

   Henry: I don't understand the phase thing, but I'm not going to argue
   about it.

   Proposal: Accept Norm's suggestions and close the issue.

   Accepted.

  033

   Norm: The proposal is to standardize SVRL as the output.

   Henry: I have no problem saying that implementations SHOULD use
   SVRL[reference] for this purpose.
   ... The substantive issue of another output port for positive reports
   probably does need a new port.

   Norm: We already have a secondary port, can't we just put postive reports
   there?

   Henry: So it's impl defined what goes on that port. The only thing that's
   for sure is that if assert-valid is true then errors will go there if
   there are errors.

   Proposal: All reports (error or otherwise) go on the report port. We'll
   say that the output SHOULD be in SVRL.

   Accepted.

  034

   Norm: This amounts to a proposal for a secondary port on the validation
   steps on which the answer 'true' or 'false' appears depending on whether
   or not the validation was successful.

   Henry: I got a private reply from James.
   ... He agrees that try/catch can be used, but thinks it would be more
   consistent if the result was available directly.
   ... Part of the problem is that in my pipeline, I support the PSVI and I
   have an extension function that makes it trivial to get this answer.
   ... We could put the validity/validation attempted results on the document
   in an XProc namespace.

   Mohamed: Streaming is also a problem.

   Some discussion of encoding of PSVI items...

   Richard: It's possible that you might want to determine the validity w/o
   doing anything with the validated result.
   ... I think the argument you quoted about the output of the step reflects
   a different idea about what validation means. If you're just asking the
   question, then it is, but if you're expecting downstream steps to use the
   result, then it isn't.

   Norm: Neither answer seems compelling to me.

   Henry: What's someone going to do with this result? Presumably they're
   going to put a choose in and write to subpipelines anyway...

   Richard: Maybe not, maybe the answer is just true/false

   Norm: But that's not terribly useful by itself.

   Mohamed: I don't think it's worth having this answer. It would make
   streaming imposible, so try/catch wouldn't be too much of a burden.
   ... You just write your own wrapper pipeline to get the result.
   ... Even in the proposal, there's the idea that you might want the error,
   etc. So that should be done in a try/catch.

   Henry: Yeah, I agree.
   ... This just encourages too many different ways to write the same thing.

   Norm: We earlier set "can you do it yourself" as a criteria for new steps,
   that can apply here.

   Mohamed: Right. This would change all the validate steps which is too big
   a change from my perspective.

   Proposal: Reject this request, you can get the result yourself with
   existing features of XProc

   Accepted

  Where are we?

   Norm: Basically finished! The XSL/Query comment needs more work, but
   there's nothing major in it.
   ... The question of XML encryption/decryption/c14n, etc. is something
   we'll discuss with the XML Security WG next week.

   Norm describes his feelings about security which amount to putting the new
   steps in a separate document.

   Henry: I've supported that approach already.

   Mohamed: I think I agree. My proposal a few months ago was to put it all
   in a parameter port and try to standardize with a clear proposal. It ends
   up being the same to have it a separate note or REC-track document.
   ... On C14N, we've already discussed this and said it was a user-defined
   option on serialization.

   Norm: Good point! Thank you, Mohamed.

  Test suite

   Norm outlines that we'll get to CR just after the f2f. But we need tests
   to get out.

   Mohamed: How will we split up the work?

   Norm: Submit tests and I'll contrive to get some reports about what the
   coverage is.
   ... If people submit tests, I'll write some reports on analytics.

   Mohamed: Ok, I'll write some tests.

   Henry: If I have an idle day, I'll look at what would be required to
   convert my private tests into our format.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to update the RELAX NG grammer for the test suite
   vocabulary [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-xproc-minutes.html#action01[8]]

  Any other business?

   None heard.

   Adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to update the RELAX NG grammer for the test suite
   vocabulary [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-xproc-minutes.html#action01[9]]
    
   [End of minutes]

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

   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/10/02-agenda
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-xproc-irc
   [4] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/10/02-agenda.html
   [5] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#opt-param-bindings
   [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2008Sep/0044.html
   [8] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [9] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [11] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[10] version 1.133 (CVS
    log[11])
    $Date: 2008/10/02 16:01:55 $

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2008 17:08:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 October 2008 17:08:12 GMT