- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:11:48 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2fxis7qqz.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 136, 05 Feb 2009
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Mohamed, Paul, Vojtech, Alex, Henry
Regrets
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Accept this agenda?
2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
3. [7]Next meeting: telcon 12 Feb 2009?
4. [8]Review of open action items
5. [9]031. Redefining standard steps
6. [10]059. “Document sequence”
7. [11]077. Required serialization methods
8. [12]080. Content model of c:multipart
9. [13]083. http-request: if detail is true, XML is not parsed?
10. [14]084. Handling of ‘non-XProc' pipeline sources
11. [15]087. Ordering of steps in a subpipeline
12. [16]086. err:XS0010/err:XS0031
13. [17]Any other business?
* [18]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [19]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [20]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting: telcon 12 Feb 2009?
No regrets heard.
Review of open action items
ACTION-2009-01-29-01 completed
Mohamed: I didn't see very much in common between our specs. They're
mostly using binary offsets.
... There are a few others that go inside ZIP to check for files.
Norm: So you didn't see anything that seemed out of the ordinary?
Mohamed: They're using some new space characters and they're doing a
case-insensitive comparison in some places.
... I'll be watching those things.
Norm: It doesn't sound like there's anything we as a WG need to comment
on.
Mohamed: I don't think so.
ACTION-2009-01-29-02 continued
031. Redefining standard steps
-> [21]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C031
Norm: This is about attempts to redefine steps in the p: namespace.
Vojtech: I thought err:XS0036 would cover it.
Norm: Yes, but I think we also want the error to cover the case of
declaring p:foo
Vojtech: Ok, then we don't have an error for that.
Norm: I think we should just create a new error for this, any objections?
None heard.
059. “Document sequence”
-> [22]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C059
This is about the term "document sequence". Should we define it?
Norm: I've never thought we meant more or less than what the English
language words mean.
Vojtech: If we have a formal definition of sequence, then we'd need to
define other things.
... The word sequence is almost the definition.
Alex: Since the term sequence in XQuery/XPath 2 has a particular concept,
perhaps we need a definition is looser.
... XPath 2 has a bunch of loaded semantics that we don't want to inherit.
Norm: True, you never get an XPath 2.0 "sequence" from our "sequence of
documents".
Some discussion about the fact that you can't actually access our
sequences as a XPath 2.0 sequence.
Norm: Does anyone think we need to try to tie this down?
Henry: I think it's likely to be harder to get right than to say nothing
about it. It's very hard to get right.
Mohamed: Especially if you want to have room to do parallel optimization.
Vojtech: In XQuery (and XSLT) we do say that the sequence becomes the
default collection.
Norm: But that's a collection not a sequence.
... I propose that we close this with no action.
Accepted.
077. Required serialization methods
-> [23]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C077
Norm: The request here is that we support the 'text' serialization method.
Alex: I think this is a quality-of-implementation issue. There's nothing
that prevents implementations from doing more.
Mohamed: I agree. I think XML serialization is the bare minimum. Getting
text right is actually quite hard.
Norm: Anyone want to argue for including more than XML as mandatory?
None heard.
Norm: I propose that we decline and leave other methods as
implementation-defined.
Accepted.
080. Content model of c:multipart
-> [24]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C080
Norm attempts to summarize.
Norm: I just don't know if useful headers can be associated with a body.
Vojtech: I think the body can have arbitrary headers. That's what the text
of the step says.
Alex: I think you're right.
Norm: That makes me want to put a wrapper around each collection of
(header*,body), but maybe it's too late for that.
Alex: There's more work that you have to do to encode the pieces.
Norm: I just wish we had c:part wrappers around them, but I don't think we
can do that now.
Vojtech: We don't handle nested multipart bodies either.
Norm: So I guess the proposal is to fix the grammar so that it allows a
mixture of headers and bodies.
Accepted.
-> [25]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C081
083. http-request: if detail is true, XML is not parsed?
Norm attempts to summarize.
Norm: I think the intent was to flip the 2nd and 3rd paras of 7.1.10.4 and
make the "translation of the text into a Unicode character sequence" only
apply to non-XML media types.
Mohamed: I think that was the intent.
Alex: The intersection between these two paragraphs is not zero.
... If you have an XML media type or a text type, then you can make a
sequence of characters. If it's an XML media type, then you should parse
it.
Norm: So this is intended to be two-part process.
Alex: Maybe the right thing to do here is leave most of that first
sentence and just at the end say that you're supposed to construct a
sequence of characters.
... Make the part about making a c:body a separate part.
Norm: What I hear is that the intent is to get Unicode characters first,
then parse them if it's an XML media type.
... Anyone disagree?
None heard.
Norm: I propose we get our editor to fix this.
Accepted.
084. Handling of ‘non-XProc' pipeline sources
-> [26]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C084
Norm: This is about what should happen if you hand a random XML document
to a processor.
Vojtech: I think it should be separate static error.
Norm: My concern is: should we mandate the behavior or say that it's
implementation defined.
Mohamed: Use XPointer if you want to embed pipelines.
Vojtech: Importing would be a problem too.
Norm: I think the proposal is make it a new static error if the pipeline
document doesn't have a root of p:pipeline, p:declare-step, or p:library.
Mohamed: yep.
Accepted.
087. Ordering of steps in a subpipeline
-> [27]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C087
Norm: I think some examples would be useful, perhaps in a non-normative
appendix.
... Does anyone else think that would be valuable?
Vojtech: I have problems with understanding all the details.
Mohamed: If you have explicit connections, why do you have to reorder
them?
Norm: Only so that you can get the execution order right.
Mohamed: I think reorder and execution order are different things.
... I'm trying to find out why we're trying to make the process harder
than necessary.
Vojtech: So is there a use case for writing the steps out of order?
Mohamed: Only to make authoring easier.
Some discussion of how to achieve the order.
Norm: Make the implicit connections explicit, then look for cycles. If you
find a cycle, the author loses. If you don't, then pick one of the partial
orders and you're good to go.
Vojtech: Ok, I'm satisfied for now.
Norm: In that case, I think we should just close this without action.
Accepted.
Any other business?
None heard.
Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [28]scribe.perl version 1.133 ([29]CVS
log)
$Date: 2009/02/05 17:10:43 $
References
Visible links
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item07
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item08
13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item09
14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item10
15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item11
16. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item12
17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#item13
18. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-minutes.html#ActionSummary
19. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/02/05-agenda
20. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes
21. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C031
22. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C059
23. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C077
24. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C080
25. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C081
26. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C084
27. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C087
28. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
29. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 17:13:03 UTC