- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:12:29 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m24pgo5rma.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/18-minutes
W3C[1]
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 88, 18 Oct 2007
Agenda[2]
See also: IRC log[3]
Attendees
Present
Paul, Alessandro, Henry, Mohamed, Andrew, Norm
Regrets
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* Topics
1. Charter extension
2. Review of action items
3. Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted)
output
4. Comment 6: Bindings for pipeline inputs
5. Comment 18: Scope of step types
6. Comment 24: Passing PSVIs between steps
7. Comment 7: Saxonica comments on sections 1 and 2
8. Comment 12: Saxonica comments on sections 3 and 4
9. Any other business
* Summary of Action Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<ht> Norm, shall I start the call w/o you?
<ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/18-agenda[4]
<ht> scribenick: ht
HST: Agenda approved
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-minutes[5]
HST: Minutes approved
... Next meeting 25 October
... NW apologies for 25 Oct and 1 Nov, HST to be in the chair _pro tem_
... Charter has been extended for 1 year
PG: F2F agenda?
NW: one day on comment processing, one day on the future, I guess
PG: I find a detailed agenda helps folk to be prepared
NW: Well, item 1 is "Read and be familiar with the details of the issues
list"
<scribe> scribenick: Norm
Charter extension
Extended 1 year.
Review of action items
A-86-01: Alex to review XSLT streaming requirements before the
face-to-face.
<scribe> Continued
A-86-03: Henry to reply to the commenter (non-string parameters; issue 30)
<scribe> Completed
A-86-04: Henry to craft the prose to cover the defaulted output case
<scribe> Continued
A-87-01: Norm to take a stab at reconsidering the default inputs feature
applying it only to ports that are not primary
<scribe> Continued.
A-87-02: Alex to propose some text about imports and circularity
<scribe> Continued
A-87-03: Norm to attempt to incorporate Richard's draft text about step
type scope
<scribe> Continued.
Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#029
<scribe> Continued pending Henry's action
Comment 6: Bindings for pipeline inputs
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#006
<scribe> Continued pending Norm's action
Comment 18: Scope of step types
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#018
<scribe> Continued pending Norm's action
Comment 24: Passing PSVIs between steps
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#024
Norm outlines the issue and summarizes Jeni's observed options
Henry: I think we leave it impl. defined.
Some discussion of how defaulted attributes fit in: probably covered by
the spirit of the best efforts clause.
Proposal: Leave it implementation-defined.
Accepted.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry will respond to the commenter on comment 24:
passing PSVIs between steps. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action01[10]]
Comment 7: Saxonica comments on sections 1 and 2
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#007
Norm reviews the points in Mike's message.
Point 1: accepted.
Point 2: changed validate-* to validate-with-*; accepted.
<MoZ>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0034.html[12]
Point 3-6 are editorial.
Point 7: rejected, also made a separate issue
Point 8: discussion
Henry: I think we're pretty clear that we're not answering this question.
... We're trying not to be too precise.
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#input-output[13]
Henry: No, that doesn't work. An XML document isn't an Infoset, the
infoset is just a set of terms
... But maybe it's ok.
... Sure let's try this.
Norm: What about A.3?
Henry: Yes, that looks fine too.
Norm: Anyone unhappy with the editor's resolution of Mike's point 8?
None heard.
Point 9:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Oct/0003.html[14]
Norm: Anyone unhappy with the editor's resolution of Mike's point 9?
None heard.
That leaves some editorial clarifications, but I think we've covered the
technical issues
Comment 12: Saxonica comments on sections 3 and 4
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#012
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0023.html[16]
Let's leave the "editorial" and "clarification" points to the editor
unless they turn out not to be
Henry: I'm prepared to skip to 7.
... I think he's right.
Norm: I don't think these apply to the things *inside* the elements in the
step
Henry: So you meant "children" not "contains"? If so, you'll have to
repeat it endlessly.
Norm: Uhm...
Henry: Can't we just say that these rules don't apply inside p:inline?
Norm: Perhaps
Some discussion about what constitutes a step.
Norm: I think children would work.
Henry: What about giving the fifth and sixth bullets a parallel
construction
... If any element in the XProc namespace other than p:inline, or any
step, has text node children...
Norm: Sure, that would work for me.
... I think that resolves point 7.
Point 8:
Henry: I think replacing "within its container" by "immediately contained
by that steps container"
... Or if we've formally defined subpipline as the immediately contained
steps, then "the last step in document order in the subpipeline"
Norm: I'm happy to attempt to clarify that.
Point 11:
Some of this is editorail.
Norm: I think we have clarified that select only selects elements or
documents.
Henry: I've always said that select needs the same namespace fixup we
already described.
... We've already re-worded 4.2 so there isn't a double "each" anymore.
Norm: But that leaves "wrapped" and an explicit pointer to 2.6.1
... The select question points to 5.2 and aon through to p:input where
it's covered.
Henry: No, I don't think we want to make the reference to 2.6.1 explicit.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to see if the commenter agree's we've addressed his
concerns. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action02[17]]
Point 12:
Henry: I think we can replace "aggregated" with "concatentated" here.
Norm: I'm willing to do that and see if it helps.
Henry: The prose is still a bit terse.
... I think we should unpack it and make it more explicit.
Norm: Ok.
Point 13:
Norm: We probably need to make the distinction between match and select
more clear.
Henry: Not that you need to make the point about match only matching
element or document nodes here. There's no free ride.
Norm: The WG's intent is clear but the prose needs to be clearer.
... Should we make it an error to select a document node?
Henry: Yes.
Accepted.
Point 14:
Norm: I think it can be a static error.
Henry: Is this just a case where a processor could detect it statically if
it wanted to?
Norm: It could, but why not make it static?
Henry: A select option to a step may be computed, so it has to be a
dynamic error.
Norm: But for select on our compound steps and for test on when, then they
should be static errors.
Henry: Let's try that and see if there's any pushback.
Norm: Any objections?
Accepted.
Any other business
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Henry will respond to the commenter on comment 24: passing
PSVIs between steps. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action01[18]]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to see if the commenter agree's we've addressed his
concerns. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action02[19]]
[End of minutes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/18-agenda
[3] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-irc
[4] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/18-agenda
[5] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-minutes
[10] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0034.html
[13] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#input-output
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Oct/0003.html
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0023.html
[17] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action02
[18] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[19] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action02
[20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[20] version 1.128 (CVS
log[21])
$Date: 2007/10/18 16:11:09 $
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 16:12:41 UTC