- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:58:16 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m28wzv3p7r.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/04/03-minutes
W3C[1]
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 106, 03 Apr 2008
Agenda[2]
See also: IRC log[3]
Attendees
Present
Alex, Paul, Richard, Norm, Vojtech, Andrew
Regrets
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* Topics
1. Accept this agenda?
2. Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
3. Welcome Vojtech Toman
4. Next meeting: telcon 10 April 2008?
5. Consideration of the current editor's draft.
6. Comment #83, system identifiers and base URIs
7. What else do we need to do
8. Any other business?
* Summary of Action Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/04/03-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/03/27-minutes
Accepted.
Welcome Vojtech Toman
Introductions all around.
Next meeting: telcon 10 April 2008?
No regrets given.
Consideration of the current editor's draft.
Norm updated the draft to include Henry's comments, the tumblers, and a
first pitiful stab at an appendix on parallel processing.
Alex observes that the parallel processing section is currently section 8,
probably should be an appendix.
Norm: Yes, you're probably right, I'll move it.
Alex: Normative?
Norm: No, I don't think so, it's just for explanation.
Comment #83, system identifiers and base URIs
Vojtech: The issue I had was a simple pipeline that transformas an XML
document. What wasn't clear was what the resulting documents base URIs
were.
... Can I manipulate the base URI and assign it?
... If I process document.xml, I want to get document.fo, for example.
... Later I thought if I have a pipeline that validates a document, does
the result have the same base URI.
<alexmilowski> XSLT 2.0 says: "The base URI of the new element is copied
from the base URI of the literal result element in the stylesheet, unless
the content of the new element includes an xml:base attribute, in which
case the base URI of the new element is the value of that attribute,
resolved (if it is a relative URI) against the base URI of the literal
result element in the stylesheet."
<alexmilowski> In section 11.1
Norm: I think steps don't change the base URI unless they explicitly say
that they do.
Vojtech: So even viewport and split don't change the base URI?
Norm: Right.
Alex: I had always imagined that a lot of the steps we have are
identity++; and so if you think of it from that perspective, it's just
like changing parts of the infoset, leaving the base URI alone.
... Maybe one of the things we have to do is explain this more carefully.
... We're probably underspecified.
Norm: Yes, I think that definitely needs to be added.
Some discussion of XPath 1.0/2.0 functions for updating base URI.
Norm outlines his proposal for p:set-base-uri
Some discussion of what has a base URI.
Richard: I think we should say that the individual documents produced by
p:viewport have the base URI of their document elements.
<scribe> ACTION: Alex to update the spec so it says this. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action01[6]]
Alex: It seems to me that it isn't string manipulation isn't right, what
you want is relative URI resolution.
... It seems to me that set-base-uri should also handle the case of
relative URI resolution.
Norm: That seems reasonable to me.
Alex: If we wanted to roll this up so that implementors that don't have
XPath 2.0 have a step to do this, we need to think about this a little bit
more.
Norm: I'd be very happy if we continued to expand this proposal in email.
Some discussion of whether we want variables or functions.
Richard: For finding base-uri, I don't think it makes any sense to have a
variable.
... I think it should be a function that returns the base URI of an
element.
... Maybe it just makes sense for us to provide a suite of extension
functions in XProc.
... get the base URI, resolve it to an absolute URI, relativize it against
a base URI, etc.
Norm: Maybe my step idea was ill-conceived. Perhaps we should just make
extension functions; that resolves the XPath version issue.
Vojtech: I agree with this, but I think we also need to say how the base
URI is passed between steps.
Richard: You can't say the base URI is the same, you have to say something
like: the base URI of the primary output is teh same as the base URI of
the primary input unless otherwise stated.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to review the steps to clarify which ones change
base URIs and how. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action02[7]]
<alexmilowski>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2008Feb/0017.html[8]
Norm: I'm inclined to agree with Richard and say we should persue this
with extension functions.
Alex reports that it's label-elements that has a magic variable, but that
change isn't reflected int he spec.
<scribe> ACTION: Alex to update label-elements in the spec [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action03[9]]
<scribe> ACTION: Richard to draft a proposal for the new functions
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action04[10]]
Norm: Are these decisions sufficient to cover issue #83?
Vojtech: I think so.
What else do we need to do
1. We need to implement the decision of today, clearer prose and new
extension functions
2. We need to review the parallelism appendix
3. We need to update the label-elements step, check other steps
Vojtech: I have a question about insert.
... You can insert only a single document or element, should we allow a
sequence?
Norm: Indeed, I don't see why insertion couldn't be a sequence
... Anyone think we shouldn't?
Alex: We have the same rules for detecting errors as anywhere else, so I
think that's fine.
Proposed: Change insertion port to be a sequence
Accepted.
Any other business?
None heard.
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Alex to update label-elements in the spec [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action03[11]]
[NEW] ACTION: Alex to update the spec so it says this. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action01[12]]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to review the steps to clarify which ones change base
URIs and how. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action02[13]]
[NEW] ACTION: Richard to draft a proposal for the new functions [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action04[14]]
[End of minutes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/04/03-agenda
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-irc
[6] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[7] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action02
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2008Feb/0017.html
[9] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action03
[10] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action04
[11] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action03
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[13] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action02
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-xproc-minutes.html#action04
[15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[15] version 1.133 (CVS
log[16])
$Date: 2008/04/03 15:57:14 $
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 15:58:56 UTC