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

XProc Minutes 15 Oct 2009

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:08:41 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m24oq0r65y.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/15-minutes

[1]W3C

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 156, 15 Oct 2009

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Paul, Norm, Vojtech, Mohamed, Alex

   Regrets
           Henry

   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 22 Oct 2009
         4. [8]W3C Technical Plenary
         5. [9]Versioning and forwards compatibility
         6. [10]Any other business?

     * [11]Summary of Action Items

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

  Accept this agenda?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/15-agenda

   Accepted

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/08-minutes

   Accepted

  Next meeting: telcon 22 Oct 2009

   No regrets heard.

   Paul gives regrets for 29 Oct

  W3C Technical Plenary

   Expected: Norm, Henry, Alex, Vojtech, correct?

   Norm: I believe I requested a phone, we'll hook up Zakim for you if we
   can.

   Alex gives regrets for TPAC after all

  Versioning and forwards compatibility

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/

   Norm attempts to summarize where we stand.

   Norm: The status quo allows very limited forwards-compatibility and only
   if new step declarations are loaded from the W3C server.
   ... You can't just load a V2 pipeline in a V1 processor and expect it to
   work.
   ... The desire has been expressed, from several camps, to provide a more
   flexible story.
   ... They want something that will "just work"
   ... And the ability to use p:choose to select between two different
   flavors of pipeline, for V1 or V2.
   ... And they don't want to have to hit the W3C web server for new decls to
   make it work.
   ... The last point to make is, if you don't do versioning "right" in V1,
   it's very hard to get it right later.
   ... Do we care? Are we going to try to address this in V1?

   No one is heard to argue for the status quo.

   Mohamed: Let's go as far as possible in the investigation since this is
   the last chance. But at the end, perhaps we'll stick to the status quo.

   <ht> +1 to MoZ

   Norm: I think the proposals boil down to two camps:

   1. Some sort of defaulting rules for what to do when you see steps/ports
   in the p: namespace that you don't recognize.

   2. Some sort of static manipulation like XSLT's use-when

   Norm attempts to summarize the two flavors.

   Norm: Thoughts?
   ... Comments?

   Alex: Thinking about Norm's proposal for empty sequence on output.

   Norm: One weakness of my proposal is that it requires you to have the 2.0
   declarations.

   <ht> As I said in email, I find Jeni's critique of that [being online]
   compelling

   Alex: The 1.0 processor isn't going to do the right thing...

   Vojtech: If we introduce defaulting that can work without the
   declarations, then we have to be a lot more relaxed about static errors.

   <ht> That's why I prefer the use-when approach

   Alex: If you're trying to do this, the onus on the 1.0 processor is that
   it has to go retrieve the stuff.

   Norm: I'm (mostly) convinced by the offline arguments.
   ... The reality is, I think the use-when approach is the most practical.
   It balances ignoring things with user-control.
   ... It's the C preprocessor.

   Vojtech: Does this solve what we want to solve?
   ... This is really the forwards-compatible mode. When you evaluate these
   use-when conditions, you wind up with some sort of pipeline.

   Alex: One interpretation is that we have this static view and we're trying
   to adjust that. The other is that the data flow graph is the same in both
   situations, but what the steps can do is different.
   ... In the case where you produce an empty sequence, you can still hook
   things up.

   Norm: Right. If you have the declarations.

   Norm natters on about the need to have declarations.

   Norm points out that the user community that wants us to fix this isn't
   going to be happy with the need to load declaratins.

   Alex: I'm not against the use-when approach.

   Norm wonders out loud about the requirement to use use-when; or can we
   have p:when that contains a step we don't recognize and still "compile"
   the pipeline.

   Alex: I don't think use-when is as simple as it is in the case of XSLT.

   Norm: And does this really solve the backwards compability problem? If you
   throw a random V2 pipeline at a V1 processor, what will it do?
   ... If a pipeline uses a V2 step unconditionally, there's nothing a V1
   processor can do with it.
   ... So if an author wants to write a pipeline that can run in V1, he or
   she will have to use some sort of conditionality.

   Mohamed: My understanding is that we have three levels:
   ...1: mandate importing of step decls; without them then there are two
   levels:
   ...1a: primary ports
   ...1b: secondary ports
   ... My understanding is that only primary ports could be connected
   automatically.

   Norm: Right.

   Mohamed: So I think the lack of information that we have to compute the
   graph dependencies is only on primary ports.

   Norm: Right.

   Mohamed: On one branch, we say that a new primary port can never be added
   in V.next.
   ... Or, we say that if you add some primary port then we say that you have
   to make the connection explicit if you want to run it in V1.

   Vojtech: This is only about existing steps, not about new steps.

   Norm: True

   Mohamed: The same could be true for new steps, you have to make all the
   bindings explicit.

   Norm: So if you see a new step, you assume that it has no primary inputs
   or outputs.

   Mohamed: Yes.

   Norm: Interesting.

   Mohamed: As soon as we say that we don't want the user to import the step
   declarations, then the user will have to put new information into the
   pipeline to make it work in V1.

   Vojtech: For new V2 things that have have inputs like "iteration-source"
   that aren't recognized, then the pipeline will just fail.

   More discussion.

   Mohamed: The only point of my proposal is that it moves the entire static
   validation into dynamic when you have p:choose or p:try

   More discussion

   Norm talks through the "propagate errors up" story again.

   Mohamed observes that we have to support p:choose/p:try dynamically.

   Vojtech: We have to decide if a new messages output port on p:xslt should
   work or should be a failure.
   ... I don't think we can really solve this.

   Alex: I'm having trouble following the different situations we want to
   handle.

   Norm: Is there consensus to explore a radical solution that involves
   defaulting, use-when, and the other mechanisms that we've discussed here?

   Proposal: Norm to attempt to write this up?

   <ht> Yes

   Accepted.

   <ht> Willing to help

   Norm: I think the solution has these general features:

   1. Remove the requirement to load step declarations

   2. Add use-when to allow authors to be explicitly dynamic

   3. Add some defaulting rules to allow for dynamic selection (p:choose) of
   steps from different versions. (p:identity vs. p:identity-with-colors)

   4. Add a version attribute to identify when forwards compatible behavior
   is required

   Norm: I don't want a V1 processor running a pipeline that it thinks is a
   V1 pipeline to be unable to statically reject broken pipelines.
   ... I suppose we could require a version attribute, like XSLT does.

  Any other business?

   ht, can you send email reminding us how short LC and CR are allowed to be?

   Adjourned.

   <ht> Will do

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

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

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([16]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2009/10/15 16:07:59 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/15-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/15-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/15-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/15-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/15-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/15-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/15-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/15-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/15-minutes#ActionSummary
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/15-agenda
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/08-minutes
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/
  15. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  16. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 15 October 2009 16:16:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 October 2009 16:16:24 GMT