W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > August 2010

XProc Minutes 26 Aug 2010

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:56:34 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2lj7t4bbh.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XmProc/2010/08/26-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 179, 26 Aug 2010


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Paul, Henry, Norm, Vojtech

           Mohamed, Alex




     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 2 September 2010?
         4. [8]Comments on XML processor profiles
         5. [9]What's the progression of this document?
         6. [10]Possible new XProc 1.1 step: p:template
         7. [11]Any other business?

     * [12]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/12-minutes


   Norm's action is continued. :-(

  Next meeting: telcon, 2 September 2010?

   Vojtech gives regrets for 2 September.

   Propose to cancel 9 September.


  Comments on XML processor profiles

   Henry: I'd like to talk about whether people think Section 3 is useful.

   -> [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html

   -> [16]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/05/wd-comments/

   Norm: I like it. I think it's good to ground our work in the Infoset. I
   just didn't have a chance to look at the detail.

   Henry: I'm happy to let the public help with that.
   ... I don't like the layout, the "Whether the remaining information item
   is present is implementation-defined" line is too subtle.
   ... I think I'd like to say "fix that", fix the other obvious editorial
   problem wrt the word "ditto", and republish, asking for comments.

   Norm: That seems fine to me.

   Vojtech: Before we tried to stay away from using infoset terms. I wonder
   if that's ok, or ...

   Henry: I think it is. I don't know what else to do.

   Norm: I fear if we don't ground it in the infoset, then it will either not
   be grounded or we'll have to recapitulate the Infoset.

   Vojtech: Does that mean we should use the infoset terms for, for example,
   base URI, in the profiles?

   Henry: I'm not sure, I think we chose that wording very carefully.
   ... I don't think there's any conflict between the specs.

   Norm: I don't think we're obligated to update the language spec based on
   our terms in this spec.

   Henry: Ok. I'll try to have a draft ready in the next 10 days or so.

  What's the progression of this document?

   Paul: Does this document go through CR? Does it go directly to PR? What do
   we need to do?

   Norm: Good question.
   ... I guess we need to get the staff contact involved. I'd be a little
   disappointed if we had to make it a Note, but it wouldn't be the end of
   the world.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to touch base with the staff contact to see what
   they suggest. [recorded in

  Possible new XProc 1.1 step: p:template

   Norm attempts to paraphrase the problem: making it easier to construct
   fragments of XML from variables and expressions in an XProc pipeline.

   Henry encourages us to look at the discussion of Richard Tobin's XML tools
   functionality near the end of his first message.

   Henry: As Vojtech observed, there are two things going on, abbreviating
   the p:input and interpolation.

   Norm: I find the change in the the content model of steps a bit

   Henry: I also want the variable bindings to be on other ports.

   Norm: I think you'll need to stick those in variables.

   Henry: The template has to come from a secondary port so that you can
   write things as I do in the reply to Vojtech.

   Vojtech: My problem with the original syntax is that it's not clear how to
   create elements in the XProc namespace and maybe there would be value in
   being able to generate the templates dynamically.

   Norm: I proposed p:interpolated-inline.

   Henry: The problem I have with this is there's no match attribute. There's
   a fundamental semantic difference, yours takes a document and does what it
   does with it.
   ... whereas my proposal uses @match to change everywhere that matches.

   Vojtech: How does that differ from putting this in a viewport?

   Henry: Maybe it's not, but it's a lot more verbose.
   ... We're very clear in the document that the only bindings that are
   visible to step implementations are the option and parameter bindings. And
   for this to be implemented as a step would require us to break that rule.
   The curly brace substitution has to be done by the step.

   Vojtech: I proposed that we could do it with a parameter input port where
   you'd pass all these bindings.
   ... We could add a new attribute to p:inline so that we didn't have to
   have a different binding.
   ... Ideally it would be nice if we could make *any* kind of binding

   Norm: You could give the binding a step and port for interpolation.
   ... You could say <p:inline dynamic="true" step="mystep" port="result"/>

   Norm; Putting it on the binding does make sense to me.

   Vojtech: I might want to have two inputs but only have one of them be

   Norm: To cut the other way entirely, if we allowed AVTs in literal option
   values, would that be enough?

   Vojtech: I think we'd still have the p:string-replace quoting issues.

   Henry: It might be a good idea to do that, but I don't think it solves
   this problem.

   Norm: I need to think about this some more.

   Vojtech: Yes, there are two parts, enabling templating and deciding what
   the substitution rules are.

   Henry: Right. I don't want to go all the way to the bottom of the slippery
   ... I think saying that curly braces in literal content (attribute values
   or text content) is enough.

   Vojtech: We could do like p:exec and allow users to specify the quoting

   Henry: We're doing just the part of XQuery syntax that does XPath
   expressions, not full XQuery constructors.

   <ht> <elt attr="{concat($a,'}')}"/>

   <ht> <elt attr="{concat($a,'}}')}"/>

   Some discussion of escaping curly braces.

   <Vojtech> So how would I create the following document: <doc>{}</doc> ?

   <doc> {{{}}}</doc>

   Of course!

   Norm: I think that's good progress on the issue.

  Any other business?

   Norm: I think TPAC registration and hotels are ready for booking.


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to touch base with the staff contact to see what they
   suggest. [recorded in

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([20]CVS
    $Date: 2010/08/26 15:55:48 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2010/08/26-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#ActionSummary
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-agenda
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/12-minutes
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
  16. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/05/wd-comments/
  17. http://www.w3.org/2010/08/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  18. http://www.w3.org/2010/08/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  19. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  20. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 15:57:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:48 UTC