- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:12:19 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m21vumsz8s.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 135, 29 Jan 2009
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Vojtech, Alex, Henry, Mohamed
Regrets
Paul
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 5 Feb 2009?
4. [8]Review of Widgets 1.0: Packaging and Configuration
5. [9]074. Select expression in input declaration
6. [10]026. New http-request test
7. [11]036. Multiple inputs/outputs
8. [12]040. Schematron for XProc validation
9. [13]045. Using p:variable
10. [14]051. 2.13 flawed?
11. [15]068. err:XC0016 and err:XD019
12. [16]Any other business?
* [17]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [18]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [19]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/22-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting: telcon 5 Feb 2009?
No regrets given.
Review of Widgets 1.0: Packaging and Configuration
-> [20]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-widgets-20081222/
<scribe> ACTION: Mohamed to review the spec and report back if he finds
any issues [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
074. Select expression in input declaration
-> [22]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C074
Norm summarizes, and reports that his implementation would return <book/>
Vojtech: I'm more inclined to read the spec to say that the select is
applied only when the default binding is used.
Norm: It seems to me that preserving the select expression is the safest
thing.
Vojtech: That makes sense for the default, but it may make no sense if you
pass in random input.
Mohamed: I agree with Vojtech.
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to agree with Vojtech
Henry: My argument would be that the documentation distinguishes two
cases, when there's a default and when there isn't. Historically, there
used to be three different tableaux.
... I would hope that the select appears only in the giving a default
case, and not in the vanilla declaration case.
Norm: The tableaux in the spec does allow it, but that's because it no
longer distinguishes between the case where you can provide a default and
when you don't.
<ht> More to the point, the following: "If a binding is provided in the
declaration, then select may be used to select a portion of the input
identified by the p:empty, p:document, p:data, or p:inline elements in the
p:input."
Mohamed: I think the note in 5.1.1 points in the same direction.
Norm: Proposal: the select on the declaration is only used if the default
binding is used.
Accepted.
Mohamed: Can we add that the select cannot be used if there isn't a
default binding.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to clarify when the select applies. [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
026. New http-request test
-> [24]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C026
Norm summarizes the thread.
Vojtech: Someone on xproc-dev noted that if you allow cookies, then you
sometimes need to preserve state.
Norm: I think we should do cookies within a single http-request step, but
that saving cookies over a longer period should be implementation-defined.
... Proposal: By default, http-request should follow redirects and should
preserve cookies (for the duration of that single request)
Accepted.
Mohamed: Can we say something about preserving cookies for a longer period
being implementation defined.
Proposal: Implementations MAY provide implementation-defined mechanisms to
preserve cookies for longer periods of time, but are not required to do
so.
Accepted.
Norm: The next question is p:document, p:load, etc. I think we should say
that those instructions follow redirects but do not support cookies or
other advanced user-agent features.
Henry: I think we have to be explicit about this for interop.
Mohamed: I think we should keep these instructions simple.
Vojtech: But at least redirect should be handled.
Henry: Absolutely. Do what standard libraries do, but nothing else.
Norm: Proposal: p:document, p:load, etc. follow redirects but do not
preserve cookies, etc.
Vojtech: Do we need to say something about steps like p:xsl-formatter?
... And other steps that can perhaps store to http URIs?
Norm: I don't think PUT and POST support redirect...
... I think we've left the ability to write output as implementation
defined for security reasons, so we don't have to say anything.
Accepted.
Norm: The last question is, do we want to support the ability to *not*
follow redirects.
Some discussion about whether or not you need to provide options for all
these possible features.
Mohamed: This is related to HEAD right, which doesn't follow redirects.
Norm: If that's the case, then I'm happy to leave the option out.
Alex: The spec says that GET and HEAD MAY follow redirects.
Norm: "May"? That's not useful.
Alex: There are a whole bunch of variations here.
Norm: Ok, I've lost all personal interst in persuing this. I don't want to
add more compexity here. We can add it in 1.1 if the 1/2 of 1% of people
who might ever care, do in fact care.
Proposal: No such option.
Accepted.
036. Multiple inputs/outputs
-> [25]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C036
Norm summarizes.
Norm: Allow source/result to accept sequences by default?
Mohamed: no.
Henry: Why?
Mohamed: Because I think it's and advanced feature and you should have to
explicitly enable it.
Vojtech: I'm not sure it's really necessary to restrict sequences.
Norm: I think the reason may have been because serializing a sequences
isn't something you can do with vanilla XML
Vojtech: On p:pipeline you could add your own output port and then you
have a pipeline with two outputs.
Norm: I think James point that this will either be an FAQ or we should
change it.
Henry: I think, on balance, I'm in favor of making this change because it
imposes no change on any who's been using the steps but will allow more
functionality.
Mohamed: In case you're testing on an error, it'll change.
Alex: I remember this being that basically p:pipeline was supposed to be
the simple case.
Straw poll: Should we change p:pipeline to allow sequences on input and
output?
Unanimity for no change.
Proposal: the status quo remains, we'll make no change here.
Accepted.
040. Schematron for XProc validation
-> [26]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C040
Norm summarizes.
Norm: I'd like to respond, "Yes, it might. And if you write it, we'll put
it somewhere that the public can see it."
Mohamed: I agree.
Proposal: The WG will not undertake this task.
Accepted.
045. Using p:variable
-> [27]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C045
Norm summarizes.
Mohamed: I think the use case is not that simple. Just saying that you
want to have the variable on the output doesn't mean you know the
structure you need.
... I think the thread offers several solutions that are sufficient.
Vojtech: I agree you can, but it is a bit annoying.
Norm hypothesizes about we might do, but doesn't want to do it.
Alex: Isn't XSLT sufficient here?
Norm: I think it is.
Vojtech: It's not that simple to do, there is a little bit of work
involved.
Mohamed: I think it's worth letting exproc do this.
Alex: It's not that bad.
Norm: Does anyone want to argue that we should add a step for this?
None heard.
Proposal: No change, leave the status quo.
Accepted.
051. 2.13 flawed?
-> [28]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C051
Norm summarizes.
Norm: The question, I think, is if we can impose constraints on future
working groups.
Henry: I'd be surprised if that caused a problem.
... Like all restrictive covenants, it's subject to the will of the court
at the time when someone does violate the constraint.
Norm: So the high order bit is, there's no precedent for getting bounced
because of this point.
Henry: I think that's right. You can, for example, have a namespace
document that says "frozen".
Norm: Proposal: leave the status quo
Accepted.
068. err:XC0016 and err:XD019
-> [29]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C068
Norm thinks this is editorial on furthe reflection and proposes we accept
it.
Proposal: Accept the change, removing err:XC0016 in favor of err:XD0019.
Accepted.
Any other business?
Norm: The W3C Technical Plenary will be held in Santa Clara, CA, US, 2-6
November, 2009.
... I propose that if we're still a chartered WG in 2009, we agree to meet
there as our next f2f.
Mohamed: Any word on charters?
Norm: No, not yet. But I'm not expecting any problems.
Mohamed: If the US immegration policy will allow Europeans into the
company...
Norm: Yes, tentatively, that's where we'll plan to meet.
Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Mohamed to review the spec and report back if he finds any
issues [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to clarify when the select applies. [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [32]scribe.perl version 1.133 ([33]CVS
log)
$Date: 2009/01/29 19:10:21 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#item07
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#item08
13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#item09
14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#item10
15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#item11
16. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#item12
17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-minutes.html#ActionSummary
18. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/29-agenda
19. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/01/22-minutes
20. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-widgets-20081222/
21. http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-xproc-minutes.html#action01
22. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C074
23. http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-xproc-minutes.html#action02
24. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C026
25. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C036
26. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C040
27. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C045
28. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C051
29. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/#C068
30. http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-xproc-minutes.html#action01
31. http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-xproc-minutes.html#action02
32. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
33. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 19:13:02 UTC