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

XProc Minutes 5 Feb 2009

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:11:48 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2fxis7qqz.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 136, 05 Feb 2009


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Norm, Mohamed, Paul, Vojtech, Alex, Henry





     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon 12 Feb 2009?
         4. [8]Review of open action items
         5. [9]031. Redefining standard steps
         6. [10]059. “Document sequence”
         7. [11]077. Required serialization methods
         8. [12]080. Content model of c:multipart
         9. [13]083. http-request: if detail is true, XML is not parsed?
        10. [14]084. Handling of ‘non-XProc' pipeline sources
        11. [15]087. Ordering of steps in a subpipeline
        12. [16]086. err:XS0010/err:XS0031
        13. [17]Any other business?

     * [18]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [19]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [20]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes


  Next meeting: telcon 12 Feb 2009?

   No regrets heard.

  Review of open action items

   ACTION-2009-01-29-01 completed

   Mohamed: I didn't see very much in common between our specs. They're
   mostly using binary offsets.
   ... There are a few others that go inside ZIP to check for files.

   Norm: So you didn't see anything that seemed out of the ordinary?

   Mohamed: They're using some new space characters and they're doing a
   case-insensitive comparison in some places.
   ... I'll be watching those things.

   Norm: It doesn't sound like there's anything we as a WG need to comment

   Mohamed: I don't think so.

   ACTION-2009-01-29-02 continued

  031. Redefining standard steps

   -> [21]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C031

   Norm: This is about attempts to redefine steps in the p: namespace.

   Vojtech: I thought err:XS0036 would cover it.

   Norm: Yes, but I think we also want the error to cover the case of
   declaring p:foo

   Vojtech: Ok, then we don't have an error for that.

   Norm: I think we should just create a new error for this, any objections?

   None heard.

  059. “Document sequence”

   -> [22]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C059

   This is about the term "document sequence". Should we define it?

   Norm: I've never thought we meant more or less than what the English
   language words mean.

   Vojtech: If we have a formal definition of sequence, then we'd need to
   define other things.
   ... The word sequence is almost the definition.

   Alex: Since the term sequence in XQuery/XPath 2 has a particular concept,
   perhaps we need a definition is looser.
   ... XPath 2 has a bunch of loaded semantics that we don't want to inherit.

   Norm: True, you never get an XPath 2.0 "sequence" from our "sequence of

   Some discussion about the fact that you can't actually access our
   sequences as a XPath 2.0 sequence.

   Norm: Does anyone think we need to try to tie this down?

   Henry: I think it's likely to be harder to get right than to say nothing
   about it. It's very hard to get right.

   Mohamed: Especially if you want to have room to do parallel optimization.

   Vojtech: In XQuery (and XSLT) we do say that the sequence becomes the
   default collection.

   Norm: But that's a collection not a sequence.
   ... I propose that we close this with no action.


  077. Required serialization methods

   -> [23]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C077

   Norm: The request here is that we support the 'text' serialization method.

   Alex: I think this is a quality-of-implementation issue. There's nothing
   that prevents implementations from doing more.

   Mohamed: I agree. I think XML serialization is the bare minimum. Getting
   text right is actually quite hard.

   Norm: Anyone want to argue for including more than XML as mandatory?

   None heard.

   Norm: I propose that we decline and leave other methods as


  080. Content model of c:multipart

   -> [24]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C080

   Norm attempts to summarize.

   Norm: I just don't know if useful headers can be associated with a body.

   Vojtech: I think the body can have arbitrary headers. That's what the text
   of the step says.

   Alex: I think you're right.

   Norm: That makes me want to put a wrapper around each collection of
   (header*,body), but maybe it's too late for that.

   Alex: There's more work that you have to do to encode the pieces.

   Norm: I just wish we had c:part wrappers around them, but I don't think we
   can do that now.

   Vojtech: We don't handle nested multipart bodies either.

   Norm: So I guess the proposal is to fix the grammar so that it allows a
   mixture of headers and bodies.


   -> [25]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C081

  083. http-request: if detail is true, XML is not parsed?

   Norm attempts to summarize.

   Norm: I think the intent was to flip the 2nd and 3rd paras of and
   make the "translation of the text into a Unicode character sequence" only
   apply to non-XML media types.

   Mohamed: I think that was the intent.

   Alex: The intersection between these two paragraphs is not zero.
   ... If you have an XML media type or a text type, then you can make a
   sequence of characters. If it's an XML media type, then you should parse

   Norm: So this is intended to be two-part process.

   Alex: Maybe the right thing to do here is leave most of that first
   sentence and just at the end say that you're supposed to construct a
   sequence of characters.
   ... Make the part about making a c:body a separate part.

   Norm: What I hear is that the intent is to get Unicode characters first,
   then parse them if it's an XML media type.
   ... Anyone disagree?

   None heard.

   Norm: I propose we get our editor to fix this.


  084. Handling of ‘non-XProc' pipeline sources

   -> [26]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C084

   Norm: This is about what should happen if you hand a random XML document
   to a processor.

   Vojtech: I think it should be separate static error.

   Norm: My concern is: should we mandate the behavior or say that it's
   implementation defined.

   Mohamed: Use XPointer if you want to embed pipelines.

   Vojtech: Importing would be a problem too.

   Norm: I think the proposal is make it a new static error if the pipeline
   document doesn't have a root of p:pipeline, p:declare-step, or p:library.

   Mohamed: yep.


  087. Ordering of steps in a subpipeline

   -> [27]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C087

   Norm: I think some examples would be useful, perhaps in a non-normative
   ... Does anyone else think that would be valuable?

   Vojtech: I have problems with understanding all the details.

   Mohamed: If you have explicit connections, why do you have to reorder

   Norm: Only so that you can get the execution order right.

   Mohamed: I think reorder and execution order are different things.
   ... I'm trying to find out why we're trying to make the process harder
   than necessary.

   Vojtech: So is there a use case for writing the steps out of order?

   Mohamed: Only to make authoring easier.

   Some discussion of how to achieve the order.

   Norm: Make the implicit connections explicit, then look for cycles. If you
   find a cycle, the author loses. If you don't, then pick one of the partial
   orders and you're good to go.

   Vojtech: Ok, I'm satisfied for now.

   Norm: In that case, I think we should just close this without action.


  Any other business?

   None heard.


Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [28]scribe.perl version 1.133 ([29]CVS
    $Date: 2009/02/05 17:10:43 $


   Visible links
   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item08
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item09
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item10
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item11
  16. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item12
  17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item13
  18. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#ActionSummary
  19. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-agenda
  20. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes
  21. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C031
  22. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C059
  23. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C077
  24. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C080
  25. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C081
  26. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C084
  27. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C087
  28. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  29. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 17:13:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:47 UTC