- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 11:18:36 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2k54up8dv.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 142, 30 Apr 2009
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Henry, Mohamed, Paul
Regrets
Vojtech
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 7 May 2009
4. [8]103 p:validate-with-xml-schema - multiple schemas
5. [9]124 XQuery 1.0
6. [10]127 rejecting invalid/unsupported p:serialization options
7. [11]128: default namespaces
8. [12]Next steps
9. [13]Default processing model.
10. [14]Any other business?
* [15]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [16]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-agenda
Accepted
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [17]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes
Accepted
Next meeting: telcon 7 May 2009
No regrets given.
103 p:validate-with-xml-schema - multiple schemas
Norm: We have a partial resolution, I propose that we leave the rest
implementation dependant.
MoZ: Why implementation-dependent?
Norm: Uhhh...
Henry: Because it will depend on what the underlying validator will do.
Norm: And because in 2.2.1 we say implementation-dependent mostly.
... Anyone think we can answer 103 normatively w/o making changes to
2.2.1?
None heard
Proposal: The behavior is implementation-dependent.
Accepted.
124 XQuery 1.0
Norm summarizes the email
Norm: In short, I want to take the version numbers out and say that the
p:xquery step (for example) does XQuery, the exact versions of which being
implementation-defined.
MoZ: I'm concerned because it opens an interoperability problem. We
explicitly solved this problem for XSLT.
Henry: Yeah, but most W3C specs are moving in this direction. In general,
it seems to me that it's an overall improvement to the value proposition
for our users if as many tools as possible support as many versions as
possible.
Norm: Right. In particular, I want to avoid making an impl non-conformant
just because a new version of XQuery comes out.
Henry: I shouldn't have said version, because I've been falling into the
habit of assuming everyone will follow the rules.
... I'm happy to say "this or subsequent editions" on the assumption that
there will be backwards compatibility.
Norm: So you do want to make an XProc impl non-conformant if it supports
XQuery 1.1 or 2.0?
Henry: I don't want an implementation that only supports XQuery 2.0.
... And if I want to be careful, I have to go further and say only an
XQuery 2.0 that's not backwards compatible with 1.0.
MoZ: Can we say XQuery 1.0 or subsequent edition or version that is
backwards compatible with 1.0.
Norm: I guess I could live with that.
Henry: I was going to add one more bit of flexibility: as well as other
non-backwards compatible versions at user option.
... The point is, you must support something that's backward compatible
with what we spec, but you can do other things if you give the user
control.
MoZ: I like it, and I think we should say the same thing for
p:xsl-formatter.
Norm: Fine by me.
MoZ: What is the expect behavior for XML Schema?
... If the processor only handles 1.1 and not 1.0, is it something we want
to avoid or allow?
Norm: Should we say the same thing for XML Schema?
Henry: I'd even think we could go so far as to say this once in the the
document.
Norm: I'm ok with that.
Proposal: steps must implement the specified version or any subsequent
edition or version that is backwards compatible. At user option, they may
support other, non-compatible versions or extensions.
Accepted.
127 rejecting invalid/unsupported p:serialization options
Norm summarizes.
Norm: I think it boils down to saying that an implementation MAY or MUST
or MUST NOT check serialization options even if it's not serializing.
MoZ: I think MAY is sensible.
Norm: I think that's probably right. It's a small interop problem, but
only on pipelines that aren't, in some sense, correct.
Proposal: Use MAY
Accepted.
128: default namespaces
Norm summrizes.
MoZ: For elements, it's explicit in XPath 1.0; for function calls it's in
XSLT.
... We definitely have to note it.
Norm: I think we should say that element names w/o a prefix are in no
namespace, function names w/o a prefix always invoke the underlying XPath
functions. They are not effected by any in-scope binding for the default
namespace.
MoZ: I think that for 2.0, it's already said in the spec. It's only when
you're in 1.0 when you have to say that.
Norm: The other part is, in an XPath 2.0 implentation, we don't provide
any mechnaims for change the default function namespace.
Accepted.
Norm: We have closed all of the outstanding comments on XProc!
Next steps
1. The default processing model
2. Get to PR!
3. A complete test suite
4. We've missed our heartbeat requirement
Norm: Proposal: we publish a new CR draft, containing all of the
resolutions sometime in May then work on finishing the test suite while we
talk about the default processing model.
Paul: We're not going to CR again?
Norm: No, we're not.
Henry: It's going to be published as CR in TR space.
Norm: Anyone think that's a bad plan?
MoZ: I think it's a good plan.
... We need to say that we're moving forward.
... We'll have a chance to encourage people to help us with the test
suite.
Default processing model.
Not ready for discussion this week
Any other business?
None heard.
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([19]CVS
log)
$Date: 2009/05/06 15:16:46 $
References
Visible links
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-minutes#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-minutes#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-minutes#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-minutes#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-minutes#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-minutes#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-minutes#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-minutes#item07
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-minutes#item08
13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-minutes#item09
14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-minutes#item10
15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-minutes#ActionSummary
16. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/30-agenda
17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/04/23-minutes
18. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
19. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 15:33:12 UTC