W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2009

XProc Minutes 9 Apr 2009

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:07:59 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m263hdah74.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-minutes

[1]W3C

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 139, 09 Apr 2009

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Norm, Richard, Paul, Vojtech

   Regrets
           Henry, Mohamed

   Chair
           Norm

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon 16 Apr 2009?
         4. [8]#126 Request from TAG: Status of work on default processing
            model
         5. [9]#100/#101 Section 5.11, the inherited environment, and
            input/output ports.
         6. [10]#104 validate-with-xml-schema - multiple schemas provided
         7. [11]#105 p:xquery and c:data
         8. [12]#106 p:exec - path separators
         9. [13]#107 p:exec - multiple source documents
        10. [14]Any other business?

     * [15]Summary of Action Items

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

  Accept this agenda?

   -> [16]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-agenda

   Accepted.

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [17]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/03/19-minutes

   Accepted.

  Next meeting: telcon 16 Apr 2009?

   No regrets heard.

  #126 Request from TAG: Status of work on default processing model

   Paul: Are we still planning to try to address that?

   Norm: I think I'd like us to take a look at it

   Richard: Is the TAG responsible for overlapping things?

   Norm: I think the TAG is looking at some related issues, but they probably
   hope we'll provide some guidance.

   Richard: The description in the charter is pretty vague, perhaps we could
   get more specifics?

   Norm: Yes. Indeed.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm/Henry to attempt to provide a more crisp description
   of what's needed as a first step towards getting to this work. [recorded
   in [18]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

   Richard: Use cases would be a good place to start. I've long imagined that
   one such use case is to answer the question "what does a web browser do
   with an XML document"

   Norm: I'll work this into the agenda more regularly so that we can track
   our progress.

  #100/#101 Section 5.11, the inherited environment, and input/output ports.

   Norm attempts to summarize.

   Norm: I think the answer, whether the prose is clear or not, is that steps
   can't see their own inputs and outputs. The question of 5.11 is an
   attempt, I think to address the special case of p:output on a compound
   step.

   Richard: The outputs of a compound step are surely in the same state as
   the other step children of a subpipeline?

   Vojtech: I thought that in 5.11 the phrase "In all cases except the
   p:output of a compound step" was redundant.
   ... When I read it, I went looking to see what was so special, but in fact
   I think it's covered by the other definitions. It isn't special.

   Norm: Fair enough, I'm happy to remove the phrase if it causes more
   confusion than clarity.

   Vojtech: Unless I missed something, I wasn't sure.

   Further discussion of 2.5

   Norm: In 100, the magic phrase from 2.5 is "the container's contained
   steps". Compound steps see their siblings, but not themselves.

   Vojtech: I have a compound step. It sees the output ports of its contained
   steps. Suppose one of the contained steps is a compound step.
   ... Now inside that compound step, this step inherites the visibility of
   the output ports from its parent, which means that it sees it's output
   port.

   Richard: No, it sees the output ports of its siblings, not its parent.

   Norm: I think that second bullet in 2.5 needs to clarify that it doesn't
   apply to the contained step itself.
   ... To fix issue 100, we need to say "The union of all the declared
   outputs of all of the containers's contained steps *except this step* are
   added to the readable ports." But in better English.

   Agreed.

   Norm: Coming back to 101, I now think that prose is correct. It wouldn't
   be allowed according to the rules and rather than rewrite the rules to
   allow it, we're simply stating an exception.

   Agreed.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to fix the rules in 2.5 to satisfy CR #100. CR #101
   can be closed without action. [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-minutes.html#action02]

  #104 validate-with-xml-schema - multiple schemas provided

   Vojtech: If you have the validate with XML Schema step and you pass
   multiple schemas, what does that mean.

   Norm attempts to describe the schema validation rules of XSD.

   Vojtech: And what about xs:include and xs:import.

   Norm: I propose we wait for Henry's input.

  #105 p:xquery and c:data

   Vojtech explains.

   Norm: It boils down to whether the 3rd or 4th bullet in 7.2.9 applies. I
   don't think it much matters.

   Vojtech: I think we should say that it's c:data without a content-type or
   with a content-type that specifies a text content type...something like
   that.

   Norm: That works for me.
   ... Proposed: make the change that Vojtech outlines.

   Accepted.

  #106 p:exec - path separators

   Norm: My proposal is that "you lose" if you get mixtures of slashes and
   you turn on fix-slashes.

   Vojtech: So you lose if you need a mixture fo forward and backward slashes
   in the filename

   Norm: Only if you turn on the fix-slashes option.
   ... It seems like we have two choices, leave it as is or invent a new
   escaping mechanism.

   Richard: We could use a private use character or allow the fix-slashes
   option to specify which character to replace with the platform-specific
   slash.

   Norm: We've made pretty significant changes to p:exec already.

   Richard: I think I'd say that no-translation is applied unless you specify
   the fixup and then that fixup is applied everywhere.

   Vojtech: It sounds good to me.

   Norm: How about I write up a proposal that does this and we see if we like
   it.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to write this up as a proposal. [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-minutes.html#action03]

  #107 p:exec - multiple source documents

   Vojtech: What do multiple source documents mean? Is it only to allow no
   documents?

   Norm: Yes, I think it probably was.

   Vojtech: So what happens if you pass two, is it an error?

   Norm: I think we should either say that its an error or say that its
   implementation-defined.
   ... Do you have any command-line tools that accept a sequence of documents
   on stdin?

   Richard: No, I don't think so.

   Norm: I propose we make it an error in V1 to pass a sequence of more than
   one document.

   Accepted.

  Any other business?

   None heard.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to fix the rules in 2.5 to satisfy CR #100. CR #101 can
   be closed without action. [recorded in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to write this up as a proposal. [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm/Henry to attempt to provide a more crisp description of
   what's needed as a first step towards getting to this work. [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]

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

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [24]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([25]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2009/04/09 17:07:02 $

References

   Visible links
   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-minutes.html#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-minutes.html#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-minutes.html#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-minutes.html#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-minutes.html#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-minutes.html#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-minutes.html#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-minutes.html#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-minutes.html#item08
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-minutes.html#item09
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-minutes.html#item10
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-minutes.html#ActionSummary
  16. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/09-agenda
  17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/03/19-minutes
  18. http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  19. http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  20. http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-minutes.html#action03
  21. http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  22. http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-minutes.html#action03
  23. http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  24. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  25. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 9 April 2009 17:08:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 9 April 2009 17:08:51 GMT