- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:08:40 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m28x4zbfmv.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/11/15-minutes
W3C[1]
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
15 Nov 2007
Agenda[2]
See also: IRC log[3]
Attendees
Present
Norm, Alessandro, Richard, Henry, Rui, Andrew, Murray, Alex
Regrets
Paul, Mohamed (partial)
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* Topics
1. Accept this agenda?
2. Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
3. Next meeting: telcon 29 November 2007
4. XPath versions
5. XSLT versions
6. New public working draft
7. New step types (p:hash, p:uuid, p:www-form-url(en|de)code
8. Other last call comments (implicit inputs/outputs; default
bindings)
9. Any other business
* Summary of Action Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/11/15-agenda
Accepted
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0031.html
Accepted
Next meeting: telcon 29 November 2007
Alessandro gives regrets for 29 Nov
(Note that we are not meeting on 22 Nov!)
XPath versions
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0038.html
Norm summarizes the state of play
Henry: The traditional schema group compromise seems appropriate: call
attention to it in the next draft of the spec and ask for implementor and
user feedback.
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0053.html
Alex: So we're going to allow for different answers in the two versions.
Norm: Yes, for now, with Henry's suggestion for priority feedback
Henry: The 99.99% case is when you're comparing strings in XPath 1, one of
the strings will coerce to a number. In that case, you will get the same
answer.
Murray: Why can't we settle on XPath 2.0
Henry/Richard: Because right now there are too many implementation
communities where 1.0 is only available.
Murray: I think it'd be better to leave them behind than to possibly give
different results.
Henry: The proposal as it stands includes the idea that we give authors
guidance for interoperability.
... It's extremely unlikely that the kinds of xpaths that don't
interoperate will really turn up in practice.
... I'd rather include the XPath 1.0 people in at the expense of that very
small problem than exclude them to get rid of it.
Alex: Interoperability is more than just getting the same answer; there
are also cases where the XPaths simply won't work on some implementations.
Norm: I think saying XPath 2.0 only would be a tactical error.
Murray: So can we say 1.0 only?
Norm: There are implementors that only plan to support 2.0.
Alex: I'm not sure that guiding authors to use some squishy middle ground
is the right answer.
... I think it'd be better to explain the interoperability problems.
Some discussion of the right interoperability story.
Henry: I'd like to see the editor try to write up the point that we
arrived at.
Norm: Uh, I did that.
Alex: Do we want to allow the xpath-version attribute on any element?
Norm: I was thinking of cut-and-paste
... But I'm perfectly happy to try putting it only on p:pipeline-library
and p:pipeline
Some discussion of what the differences between 1.0 and 2.0 actually are
Richard: Should we just make it a static error to attempt to use XPath 2.0
with an XPath 1.0-only processor?
Henry: I'm happy with the silent attempt because it is amenable to
conditional pipelines.
Murray: Back in the days when we were first talking about SGML on the web,
one of the expressions that came up was "perverse obscurity".
... This discussion of 1.0/2.0 corners is perverse obscurity.
... We're setting up a situation where it is possible for pipelines to
generate the wrong answer.
Henry: I think you're exhagerating the situation.
Norm: I think the number of cases where you're going to give the wrong
answer is quite small.
Richard: Presumably users of XSLT 2.0 processors with XSLT 1.0 stylesheets
are experiencing the same problems.
Norm: yes.
Henry: I've been doing this for years and I've never had a problem.
Norm: We could make XPath 1.0 compatibility mode a MUST for implementors
Richard: And we could say that XPath 1.0 implemntors MUST only run
expressions that will give teh same result
Norm: Bah, I don't think I want to go there.
Henry: I sort of like this road; nobody loses, it's just that some people
win more than others.
... I think the spec should say that if someone asks for XPath 2.0
evaluation, your XPath 1.0 implementation MUST only evaluate those XPaths
which they know have the same value.
Richard: And if yours doesn't know any, it must reject them all.
Norm: So we're going basically the route I outlined, but saying that 2.0
processor must implement 1.0 mode and a 1.0 processor must not evaluate
any expression that it cannot determine will give the same result in XPath
2.0.
Richard: Can we find out what the subset is?
Alex: Maybe. There's an appendix in XPath 2.0 spec.
Proposed: Go forward as above for the next draft.
Accepted.
XSLT versions
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0016.html
Norm outlines his plan
Alex: I'm all for it.
Proposed: go this way for the next draft.
Accepted.
New public working draft
Norm: I think we need a new draft asap.
Richard: We also need the stuff about what types are in scope.
Norm: I'm happy to do the next draft with a fair number of "TBD" sections.
Proposed: editor will make a new public draft with the XPath/XSLT
decisions and as many other decisions as possible to be published as soon
as practical.
Accepted.
New step types (p:hash, p:uuid, p:www-form-url(en|de)code
Norm: Anyone object to putting those in the next draft?
Mohamed, do we have strong use cases for them
Norm: Yes, and they're optional anyway
Accepted.
Other last call comments (implicit inputs/outputs; default bindings)
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0032.html
Norm summarizes the state of default bindings
Accepted.
Norm attempts to summarize the default input/output case.
See 2.3 in the 13 Nov editor's draft.
Accepted.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to change all the examples [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01[10]]
Any other business
Henry: It occurs to me that wrt the visible step types, it's not
completely clear whether we have schema rules or xslt rules. If I import
something that imports something else, do I get to use what's in the third
thing or not.
... Richard and my prose supposes that the answer is yes. The current
draft suggests that it's no.
... And the message about circular imports clearly suggests that it's no.
Richard: I believe that Henry's message is right, modulo that fix.
Henry: I'd like to particularly encourage Alex to review it.
Alex: Right. Will do.
Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to change all the examples [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01[11]]
[End of minutes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/11/15-agenda
[3] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-xproc-irc
[10] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[11] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[12] version 1.128 (CVS
log[13])
$Date: 2007/11/15 17:07:31 $
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:08:55 UTC