- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:32:48 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m23akhpd6n.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/28-minutes
W3C[1]
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 123, 28 Aug 2008
Agenda[2]
See also: IRC log[3]
Attendees
Present
Norm, Rui, Paul, Henry, Richard, Mohamed, Andrew, Alex
Regrets
Vojtech
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* Topics
1. Accept this agenda?
2. Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
3. Next meeting: telcon 4 Sep 2008?
4. Action items
5. Last Call comments
6. Item 001
7. Item 002
8. Item 003
9. Item 007
10. Item 008
11. Item 013
12. Item 014
13. Item 015
14. Item 016
15. Item 017
16. Item 019
17. Any other business?
* Summary of Action Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/28-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/14-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting: telcon 4 Sep 2008?
Rui gives regrets for 4 Sep
Norm gives regrets for 11 Sep; Henry will chair if there's a call.
Action items
Norm: Henry is working to get our charter extended through December to
align with the other XML WGs.
Last Call comments
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/lastcall/
Item 001
Norm: I think there's only one item, making the step naming rules
non-normative.
... I think we made them normative on purpose and we're unlikely to want
to change them.
Henry: I think that's the right thing to do. It gives us a basis for
describing steps in URIs if anyone ever wants to.
Proposal: Make no change.
Accepted.
Item 002
Norm: Also from Jim, a request for namespace aliasing instead of
p:namespace-rename.
... I don't want to make this change.
Alex: He's asking for something that's related, but not the same as
namespace-rename
Henry: The only possible virtue I can see is that it might save you some
typing if you happened to have the prefixes in scope.
... I don't think his proposal is substantially different, so why make the
change?
Norm: Ok, I'll see if that satisfies him.
Item 003
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2008Aug/0024.html
Norm: This is about RDF and there are some suggested step types here.
Henry: I think we should respond as positively as possible and suggest
that absolutely, the Semantic Web Deployment WG should publish a pipeline
library with these steps defined as soon as possible.
Norm: I agree, I think the best thing we can do is suggest that the folks
with the relevant expertise publish the library.
Henry: They'll get all the interop they need by doing it that way, using a
W3C URI for the step namespace.
Norm: I think we might get some pushback that they would like this to be
in p: and in V1, but I'm not sure we can practically satisfy that request.
Proposal: Suggest that this is something that folks with the relevant
experience undertake asap, but that we won't plan to include it in p: in
V1.
Accepted.
Item 007
Norm: This is from Vojtech, who gave regrets, but I think I can describe
it.
... Vojtech observes that p:load requires support for http: and file: URIs
and wonders if p:data should do the same.
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2008Aug/0089.html
Mohamed: There are now three locations where we need to be clear on what
schemes are supported, p:load, p:http-request, and p:data
Norm: And p:document, as it happens.
... It seems odd to call out http: and file:, but maybe it's useful for
interoperability
Alex: I think it's useful.
Norm: Does it make sense to rephrase this as general note along the lines:
implentations are encouraged to support all practical schems for loading
resources, and in particular they SHOULD support file: and http(s): URIs.
Mohamed: That's fine for me.
Richard: I can imagine an implementation that doesn't have any files
Norm: Sure, but then that's a good reason not to obey the SHOULD.
Proposal: Make a general note as outlined above.
... and adjust the spec accordingly.
Accepted.
Item 008
Norm: I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not sure what the available APIs
actually provide.
Henry: Well, that's critically important. I'm less inclined to do this if
there's no way to implement it.
Norm: Ok, I'll investigate.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to investigate RELAX NG APIs for switches to control
DTD Compatibility conformance. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action01[9]]
Item: 012
Norm: I just wanted to confirm that the WG agrees with me that an XSLT 2.0
step is free to produce PSVI-rich results even if @psvi-required appears
no where.
... Even if you said psvi-required=false, a step can still produce
PSVI-rich infosets.
... Extra PSVI stuff shouldn't cause any problems.
Henry: Seems right. Do we need to change anything?
Norm: Maybe just add some editorial clarity.
Mohamed: We can put psvi-required on declaration, library, and pipeline.
But not on individual steps.
Norm: Interesting, that's true, these are declaration-level attributes,
not instance level.
... But maybe that's ok, there's no value in having a single step in the
middle of a pipeline require PSVI support. I don't think.
... So I guess the question remains, if you say psvi-required=false, is it
an error to produce a PSVI?
Henry: I don't think so, in fact a PSVI capable processor might just
ignore psvi-required.
Proposal: Add some editorial clarification.
Accepted.
Item 013
Norm: I think the salient point is that we should say that how options and
parameters are bound outside the pipeline is implementation-defined.
Proposal: Say so.
Accepted.
Item 014
Mohamed: The example uses p:namespaces where it isn't needed.
Norm: Let's let the editor reconsider the example
Mohamed: I think the example predates the default rule, and that's the
problem.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to reconsider and fix this example [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action02[10]]
Mohamed: Vojtech observes that it's not clear when we use the short format
for the option.
Norm: If you use the short form then you can't use p:namespaces, so you
better not need it.
Item 015
Norm: This encrypt/decrypt and I'm trying to work with the Security WG to
resolve this one.
... We do have a use case in our requirements document that requires it.
Mohamed: That's why I've proposed to not normalize too much, maybe we
should just say that's what parameters are for, to say
implementation-defined.
Norm: Yeah, but having a standard step with no interoperability is a
little funky.
... If the Security WG can help us get these crisp, then we'll prbably
need to include them, otherwise, we'll have to do something else, maybe
what we're suggesting for the RDF steps.
Henry: Maybe at TPAC08 we can hand this off to Frederick if we promise to
help.
Norm: That's not a bad idea either.
... I think we should just leave this open a little longer.
Item 016
Mohamed: I found two or three things that weren't in sync. For example,
for p:insert, I proposed to accept different kinds of nodes depending on
the position option.
Norm: I see what you mean, but there are no constraints on p:insert so we
can just let the invalid document catch it, right?
Mohamed: What about matching a PI before the document element
Norm: Oh, right. I see. I guess that should really be anything except
attribute nodes.
Proposal: Fix p:insert
Mohamed: And p:replace should be the same.
Richard: It should only allow you to match things that can appear on the
child axis.
Norm: But matching a document node and inserting a comment as the
first-child is a reasonable thing, right?
Richard: It doesn't make any sense to insert something before or after the
*document node*
Norm: I'll have to expand the prose a bit.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to take another crack at getting this right for all
the steps. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action03[11]]
<ht> I like Richard's formulation: p:insert allows matching of anything
which may have children if where is first or last, and anything that _is_
a child if where is before or after
Item 017
Norm: We need a normative reference for UUIDs, anyone know what it is?
Alex: There's an ISO standard
... It's in the references for the RFC 4122
Norm: Ok, I just looked right past that when I scanned the references.
Proposal: Add the reference
Henry/Alex: Maybe we can refer to both, because the RFC is easier to read?
<MoZ> [3] ISO/IEC 9834-8:2004 Information Technology, "Procedures for the
<MoZ> operation of OSI Registration Authorities: Generation and
<MoZ> registration of Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) and their
<MoZ> use as ASN.1 Object Identifier components" ITU-T Rec. X.667,
<MoZ> 2004.
Norm: I don't mind having the RFC in the non-normative references.
Accepted.
Item 019
Proposal: Say they're hex
Accepted.
Any other business?
Henry: We've been glibly addressing these issues without classify the
changes. I think the way we've proceeded has been perfectly fine.
... At some point we'll have to decide.
Norm: I think we've been making clarifications and small changes.
Henry: Strictly speaking, anything that invalidates a review is out of
bounds.
Norm: I don't want to make any of those.
... If I think anything I change in the spec isn't a clarification, I'll
bring it back to the WG.
Mohamed: Probably you should make an announcement that there's an
implementation.
Norm: Okie dokie.
Henry: Have we invited review of the spec?
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to make sure we've solicited review from the
relevant WGs [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action04[12]]
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to investigate RELAX NG APIs for switches to control
DTD Compatibility conformance. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action01[13]]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to make sure we've solicited review from the relevant
WGs [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action04[14]]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to reconsider and fix this example [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action02[15]]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to take another crack at getting this right for all the
steps. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action03[16]]
[End of minutes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/28-agenda
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-irc
[9] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[10] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action02
[11] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action03
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action04
[13] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action04
[15] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action02
[16] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action03
[17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[17] version 1.133 (CVS
log[18])
$Date: 2008/09/03 13:31:53 $
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 13:33:37 UTC