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

XProc Minutes 16 Dec 2010

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:57:54 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2tyidzjkt.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes

[1]W3C

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

16 Dec 2010

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Norm, Henry, Alex, Paul, Vojtech

   Regrets

   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, 6 Jan 2011?
         4. [8]Resolve question of parsing rules for “{“ and “}” in
            p:document-template and any other issues.
         5. [9]Last Call comments on our processor profiles document
         6. [10]Any other business?

     * [11]Summary of Action Items

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

  Accept this agenda?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-agenda

   Accepted.

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/18-minutes

   Accepted.

  Next meeting: telcon, 6 Jan 2011?

   Skipping the rest of December for seasonal festivities.

   No regrets heard.

  Resolve question of parsing rules for “{“ and “}” in
  p:document-template and any other issues.

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/template-note.html

   Henry: I want to behave as much like XQuery as possible.

   Alex: I think it's XSLT not XQuery that we're copying.

   Vojtech: In the first version of the document there were different rules.
   Now we have rules more like XQuery wrt curly braces and quotes.

   Some discussion about the current rules.

   Vojtech: I think we're currently consistent with what XQuery does.

   Norm: I think the only question is, if you see "}" in xpath-mode, do you
   look for another "}" or do you end the expression?

   Vojtech: No, I proposed that if you're not in XPath mode and you see "}"
   then you just treat it literally.

   Norm: So "}}" remains "}}"?

   Vojtech: No. If you see "}}" you output "}", if you see an unescaped "}",
   you just recover from the escaping error and output the "}"

   Alex: I think the current rules could allow nested expressions in the
   future.

   Vojtech: I'm just observing that you could recover, I'm not pushing for
   it.

   Norm: I think it will be confusing to do error recovery, so I propose not.

   Alex: We could do that, and be done with it.

   Proposal: Add a new rule to "regular-mode" which states that an unquoted
   "}" is an error.

   Accepted.

   Norm: I'll also add a note to the xpath-mode section to note that "}"
   doesn't look for "}}", it ends "greedily"
   ... I'll update the spec and republish it in our space, with a plan to
   make it an official note in January if no one sees any other problems.

  Last Call comments on our processor profiles document

   -> [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/

   Vojtech: Does the minimum profile require parsing of namespaces?
   ... Now I think it's clear in the text.
   ... The other issue is the one that David Lee raised about having a much
   simpler profile.

   Henry: That amounts to subsetting XML.

   Norm: I'm very conflicted. I think what David Lee wants makes logical
   sense, but it's not clear that we have remit to go there.

   More discussion about infosets and subsets of XML and the fact that our
   section 2 says we start with a namespace well-formed document.

   Henry observes that if we named a smaller subset, then parsers that could
   do it only wouldn't be able to handle any well-formed XML which is not the
   case today.

   Proposal: Politely decline on the basis that it wouldn't be XML. It's not
   illogical, but we can't go there.

   Accepted.

  Any other business?

   Vojtech: What about my question about connecting output ports of compound
   steps?

   ->
   [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Dec/0000.html

   Norm: I think 5.11 overstates what we intended.

   Vojtech: Our implementation allows it.

   Norm: Yeah, I guess it makes sense. I don't think my implementation allows
   it but that's neither here nor there.

   Vojtech: I think the rule in 5.11 is quite convenient.

   Norm: And allowing it is an editorial change were forbidding it would be a
   technical changes, because 5.11 says it's currently allowed.

   Proposal: Add an erratum to say that the output port of a compound step
   can be directly connected to any of the compound step's readable ports.

   Accepted.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to write an erratum to allow he output port of a
   compound step can be directly connected to any of the compound step's
   readable ports. [recorded in
   [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/16-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

   Alex: Do we produce a new version with the errata merged in?

   Norm: We can, but we don't have to.

   Henry: It's polite to do it.

   Paul: That would be a second edition.

   Henry: I think it's fine to wait at least a year.

   Norm: So do I.
   ... Happy holidays and happy new year to one and all!

   Adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to write an erratum to allow he output port of a
   compound step can be directly connected to any of the compound step's
   readable ports. [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/16-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]

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

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([20]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2010/12/16 17:56:42 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2010/12/16-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes#ActionSummary
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-agenda
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/18-minutes
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/template-note.html
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
  16. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Dec/0000.html
  17. http://www.w3.org/2010/12/16-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  18. http://www.w3.org/2010/12/16-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, 16 December 2010 17:58:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 December 2010 17:58:29 GMT