XProc Minutes 23 Apr 2009

See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

23 Apr 2009


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Richard, Norm, Paul, Mohamed, Henry, Alex





     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon 30 Apr 2009?
         4. [8]Progress on the default processing model
         5. [9]080
         6. [10]101: http redirects
         7. [11]103: schema questions
         8. [12]105: p:exec path separators
         9. [13]107: p:exec quote characters
        10. [14]108: @href on c:body
        11. [15]117: Reconsider non-primary output of p:compare.
        12. [16]122: p:choose
        13. [17]Any other business?

     * [18]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [19]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [20]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/16-minutes


  Next meeting: telcon 30 Apr 2009?

   Vojtech gives regrets.

  Progress on the default processing model

   Norm looks for volunteers to work on use cases and requirements.

   Richard: In XML Core yesterday, when we were talking about when xml:id
   processing occurs, that's the sort of thing that I thought this model
   might help us describe.

   Paul: So things like when XInclude processing occurs by default.

   Norm: Yes.

   Richard: What we've done so far is describing manipulations of infosets.
   But there may also be some aspects that occur before the construction of

   Henry: Roughly speaking, what others have expressed an interest in is a
   recursive, namespace based explanation of what the content of an XML
   document is.

   Richard: If it contains some kind of kind of encryption, then the meaning
   is what you get if you look at what's been signed, etc.

   Henry: There are two layers, one of the issues is whether they can be
   separated. The first is about what documents mean, what is the infoset
   that the author of this document expects to be held to?
   ... We don't have a definition of that anywhere. One way of thinking about
   the default processing model is to consider how all the technologies are

   Paul: So, the default processing model would define some default
   processing that you do on a document and you end up with an infoset and
   that infoset is special. It's the more official or default infoset. And
   because that's the more official one, that's the one that establishes

   Henry: The relatively neutral term that the TAG uses for this is the
   elaborated infoset.
   ... Murray Maloney raised an objection to GRDDL going forward because it
   didn't answer the question of whether it operated on the pre-XIncluded
   document or the post-XIncluded document.
   ... One way to think about this is that defining the elaborated infoset
   would allow specs to say, other things being equal, start here.

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry to consider requirement and use cases so we can
   have a longer discussion of this topic in a couple of weeks. [recorded in


   Commenter satisfied, closed.

  101: http redirects

   Norm: I think the spec needs to be elaborated to say more about what/when
   you follow redirects.

   Richard: Do we need to say it or just refer to the HTTP spec?

   Norm: Point I think, but there's still a little work to be done.
   ... The technical point is that we should relax the MUST on redirects to

   Henry: Bottom line: people are going to be using libraries.
   ... I have been surprised occasionally by difference in this area.
   ... I think it would be ok to say SHOULD.

   Richard: How likely is it in the case of a redirect that the body will
   contain XML?

   Norm: Whatever you get, XProc gives you tools to look at it.

   Proposal: Change it to SHOULD


  103: schema questions

   Norm: I'm inclined to skip this this week, until I can do more based on
   our discussions last week.

  105: p:exec path separators

   Norm: Any comments on my implementation of our path separators decisions?

   Proposal: Ratify the decisions about path separators.


  107: p:exec quote characters

   Vojtech: You can use quote characters to quote strings that contain
   ... What the spec says is that you can quote a single quote character by
   doubling it.
   ... But what happens if you put a single quote character in double quotes
   and the other way around. Does that work and how do you write it?
   ... And how are single quotes interpreted in double quotes?

   Henry: Is what you meant, roughly, that you can use a mixture of quotes in
   the attribute value?

   Norm: No.

   Vojtech: If I want to pass an argument that contains a space, I have to
   quote it, but what if it contains a quote?

   Richard: Can I suggest an alternate solution? Add a new attribute that
   defines the argument separator character. By default, it's space, but you
   can set it to something else.

   Vojtech: I think that's much better.

   Henry: I like it.

   Proposal: Add a new option to identify the argument separator character.


   <richard> The shell equivalent is $IFS

   Mohamed: How many options do we have now?

   Norm: 435.

  108: @href on c:body

   Norm: I propose not in V1.

   Alex: I agree.

   Henry: That's what pipelines are for.

   Alex: It sounds like a good idea, but not now.

   Proposal: Not in V1.


  117: Reconsider non-primary output of p:compare.

   Norm: I was entirely persuaded by Mohamed's observations.
   ... Anyone in favor of this change?

   Propsal: No.


  122: p:choose

   Norm summarizes

   Richard: You're saying p:error will have a primary output?

   Norm: Yes

   Richard: So it'll be an error if you leave it unconnected.

   Vojtech: No, output ports can pour onto the floor.

   Some discussion.

   Richard: The spec does say that non-primary output ports can be
   unconnected, primary output ports must be connected.

   <MoZ> The primary output port of a step must be connected, but other
   outputs can remain unconnected. Any documents produced on an unconnected
   output port are discarded.

   Norm: In the p:error case, if we don't make it primary then it doesn't
   satisfy the condition we're trying to achieve in the p:choose case. If you
   don't want to bind it, you can put p:sink after it.

   Proposal: Add a primary output port to p:error that always produces an
   empty sequence.

   Mohamed: I don't want to specify the content.

   Henry: What difference does it make, it'll never happen. p:error always
   throws an error.


   Proposal: Change the stated semantics of p:choose (and p:try/p:catch) to
   allow whether or not the output of the step is a sequence to be determined
   by looking at the subpipelines.

   Norm: But can we do this without going back to last call?

   Vojtech: It doesn't change the existing semantics. The old version would
   still work. This is a superset.

   Henry: It's backwards compatible.
   ... But it's not forwards compatible. In principle, there could be someone
   who would object to this even though they approved of the previous

   Paul: I would think that since it's not backwards incompatible, it's fine.

   Henry: The problem is that it's not just implementor, it's notionally
   ... Could this cause anyone to change their review?

   Mohamed: If we go back to CR we may get even more questions.

   Henry: It's not a new feature.

   Norm: That's true.

   Henry: I think we should move forward, but be up-front about this at the
   PR transition call.

   Norm: What about the p:choose/p:try proposal?


  Any other business?

   None heard.


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to consider requirement and use cases so we can have a
   longer discussion of this topic in a couple of weeks. [recorded in

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([24]CVS
    $Date: 2009/04/23 18:12:11 $


   Visible links
   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#item08
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#item09
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#item10
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#item11
  16. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#item12
  17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#item13
  18. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes.html#ActionSummary
  19. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-agenda
  20. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/16-minutes
  21. http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  22. http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  23. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  24. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 18:13:39 UTC