- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:36:35 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2abdw5az0.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/09/25-minutes
W3C[1]
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
25 Sep 2008
Agenda[2]
See also: IRC log[3]
Attendees
Present
Vojtech, Norm, Alex, Richard, Andrew
Regrets
Henry, Mohamed, Michael
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* Topics
1. Accept this agenda?
2. Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
3. Next meeting: 2 Oct 2008
4. Open actions
5. Review of last call comments
6. 016
7. 020
8. 022
9. 024
10. 027
11. 030
12. 031
13. Any other business?
* Summary of Action Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/09/25-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/09/11-minutes
Accepted.
Our Last Call period ends tomorrow!
Next meeting: 2 Oct 2008
Vojtech gives regrets; Norm at risk, but Henry will chair in his absence.
Open actions
Revisit after looking at the issues.
Review of last call comments
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/lastcall/comments.html
016
Mohamed asked us to review the kinds of nodes that can go through
select/match patterns on steps
See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2008Sep/0049.html[7]
Norm's proposed changes to p:replace
Accepted.
Norm's proposed changes to p:wrap
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2008Sep/0045.html
Richard: I don't have a strong objection, but I'm a bit dubious about
having what nodes are ignorable depend on what's on either end.
Vojtech: Can it happen that you have a match that matches an element or a
text node.
Richard: What about two text nodes with a comment between them? You might
want to group those.
Norm: I see, that would work according to the old rules.
Rejected, stick with the status quo.
Norm: Then Mohamed and I had a short discussion about p:insert, ending
with:
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2008Sep/0053.html
Norm's proposed changes to p:insert
Accepted.
Richard: Just a moment. Suppose the match pattern matches a PI before the
document element.
Norm: Then we could just let the natural failure mode handle that.
Richard: If we have an error for producing a document that's not well
formed, then we could remove that case--we don't need a special error for
it.
... Then we could use error 25 for just the case that doesn't make any
sense.
Norm: I'm happy with that.
Proposal: Adopt Norm's proposal with Richard's change to error 25.
Accepted.
Vojtech: In p:replace, we say that we can only replace elements.
... Isn't that like p:insert?
Norm: Yes, I must have overlooked that one.
... So, we should allow match on p:replace to match elements, comments,
PIs, and text nodes?
Proposal: Change p:replace as suggested
Accepted.
020
Norm: I misunderstood issue 020 last time we talked about it. I thought it
was about XML encryption/decryption, effectively a dup of the other one.
... But in fact, it's about text-encrypt, a la gnupg.
... I dont' think we ahve a use case for that, so I'm inclined to reject
it.
... If we did add it, it would be a little complicated because it would
need to be a wrapper.
Richard: Henry suggested we should allow the relevant WGs to invent their
own libraries.
Alex: Right. We let users create new steps, so they can do it.
... We'll revisit in 1.1 or 2.0 or something.
Norm: Yes, but we have an encyption/decryption use case in our
requirements document, so I'm a little worried.
Richard: Presumably we aren't required to do it if we have a good
explanation. Not having the expertise seems like a good reason.
Norm: I'm content to leave the *XML* encryption/decryption case open until
after we've been able to speak with the XML Security WG.
... This issue is about text encryption.
Proposal: Reject this issue.
Accepted, no new steps for text encryption/decryption
022
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2008Sep/0029.html
Norm summarizes
Norm: I've done my best, does anyone have any other or better suggestions?
... Ok, then I'd like to close the issue.
Accepted.
024
Norm: I addressed this by changing the definintion in-scope variables in
2.6.2.1.
<scribe> ACTION 2008-09-25-01: Norm to make the parallel change in 2.6.1.1
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-xproc-minutes.html#action01[11]]
Norm summarizes the changes: defining in-scope variables as being the
"specified options" and adding a note about unspecified options.
Norm: Does anyone think that that fails to adequately resolve the issue?
Proposal: That resolves the issue.
Accepted.
027
Norm: The change here is wrt the type of options, variables, and
parameters
... I've changed the introductory sections to say that the values "MUST be
a string or xs:untypedAtomic" where they used to say "MUST be a string".
... I felt that was necessary for consistency with the actual definitions
later on.
... Does anyone have reservations about that change?
Proposal: That's fine.
Accepted.
030
Norm: Let's go through this one.
... I'm inclined to agree with point 1.
No objections.
Richard: It's ok as long as none of *our* steps have any
implementation-defined ones.
... Do they want XProc implementations to be allowed to have extra
pre-defined namespaces, or whether they merely want it to be possible for
certain steps to have certain pre-defined namespaces.
<scribe> ACTION 2008-09-25-02: Norm to follow-up with the XQuery/XSL WGs
on this point. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-xproc-minutes.html#action02[12]]
Norm: The only other non-editorial comment is about the XQuery step. I'm
inclined to accept comments from the XQuery WG about the p:xquery step.
Sounds ok.
Norm: I'll try to address these in the next draft and bring back any
issues that I see.
031
Norm: I'm inclined to make no change.
Proposal: Stick with the status quo
Accepted.
Any other business?
Vojtech: Someone asked on xproc-dev what the definition of the XSLT match
pattern is; is there a clear definition? We should try to clarify that.
Norm: I'm happy to point a little more explicitly to the respective
definitions of Pattern in XSLT 1.0 and 2.0.
<scribe> ACTION 2008-09-25-03: Norm to make the XSLTMatchPattern reference
a little more explcit [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-xproc-minutes.html#action03[13]]
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION 2008-09-25-01: Norm to follow-up with the XQuery/XSL WGs on
this point. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-xproc-minutes.html#action02[14]]
[NEW] ACTION 2008-09-25-02: Norm to make the parallel change in 2.6.1.1
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-xproc-minutes.html#action01[15]]
[NEW] ACTION 2008-09-25-03: Norm to make the XSLTMatchPattern reference a
little more explcit [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-xproc-minutes.html#action03[16]]
[End of minutes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/09/25-agenda
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-xproc-irc
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2008Sep/0049.html
[11] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-xproc-minutes.html#action02
[13] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-xproc-minutes.html#action03
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-xproc-minutes.html#action02
[15] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[16] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-xproc-minutes.html#action03
[17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[17] version 1.133 (CVS
log[18])
$Date: 2008/09/25 18:35:26 $
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2008 18:37:21 UTC