- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:29:25 +0000
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-minutes.html
- DRAFT -
XProc WG telcon
12 Nov 2009
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Paul Grosso, Alex Milowski, Henry S. Thompson, Toman Vojtech, Mohamed
Zergaoui (in part)
Regrets
Norm Walsh
Chair (pro tem)
Henry S. Thompson
Scribe
Henry S. Thompson
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]What can be used in [p:]use-when?
2. [6]exclude-result-prefixes -- name and spec. correct?
3. [7]Picking up use-when again
4. [8]Default XML Processing Model draft
* [9]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
HST: Agenda approved as posted, with DefProcMod next steps added at the end
HST: Minutes of 29 October and 2 November approved nem con.
... Next meeting 19 November
What can be used in [p:]use-when?
<Vojtech>
[10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009N
ov/0010.html
[11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009N
ov/0023.html
HST: I proposed enumerating a set of guaranteed system properties and
functions
... anything else has implement-dependent results
TV: I'm happy with this -- messy in the spec., but works for implementors
HST: We'll return to this when MoZ joins
exclude-result-prefixes -- name and spec. correct?
TV: I raised this, but realised we had already dealt with it, and so I have
no substantive problem
... MZ then raised the question of whether it was misnamed - - should it be
called e.g. exclude-unused-prefixes
AM: Not clear it's really necessary, but I'm OK with that name change
TV: It's also in XSLT, what's it called
AM: The name in the agenda is mistaken, its name in XProc today is
exclude-inline-prefixes
... In XSLT it's called exclude-result-prefixes
TV: Since we're not producing result trees, that doesn't really carry over
HST: I agree, that's a false friend
AM: exclude-inline-prefixes is used on p:pipeline, p:library, p:declare-step
as well
TV: But it only applies to p:inline. . .
AM: We can't detect use of prefixes in content, so -unused- could be
misleading
TV: Simplest thing is not to change name, but clarify what it means
[MZ joins the call]
[12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#p.inline
AM: What needs to be clarified?
TV: We need to maybe expand on the very last sentence: "The XProc processor
must include all in-scope prefixes that are not explicitly excluded."
HST: It's not really right as it stands -- should be something like "must
include in in-scope namespaces a namespace binding for every
inscope-namespace"
AM: But the elements have their full names, so even that's not necessary
HST: But w/o it the serialisation will not know what prefixes to use
AM: If the prefix property is used, it can provide that info
HST: Where is that prop?
AM: On the element -- it's optional
HST: The motivation is the same as for XSLT -- avoid clutter in
serialisation
AM: If you exclude a prefix that is only used in content, you can shoot
yourself in the foot
... The serialiser will always be able to do the right thing -- quality of
implementation -- saxon does the right thing
HST: Two reasons we did this, I think: 1) [in scope namespaces] isn't empty,
so that all serialisers can find the prefixes they might need, so that
prefixes in content get the binding they need, and to prevent serialisers
having to emit many many bindings lower down and 2) Given that to allow
unwanted prefix bindings from being emitted.
AM: Note we don't actually talk about used or not
HST: Correct, and we shouldn't
TV: Agree we shouldn't
AM: So calling it -unused- would be misleading, because we don't impose that
semantics
MZ: 1) Name is misleading, we need to fix it; 2) You may need to use the
prefix for QName in content
... So you need to let in some prefixes on purpose
... So used/unused needs to be carefully considered
HST: I hear consensus that we are not going to change what this attribute
means
... I like the name as it is because of the scoping issue
AM: +0
MZ: +0
RESOLUTION: No name change
<scribe> ACTION: HST to suggest wording to clarify the final sentence of
section 5.12 [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
MZ: Include an example of how this doesn't exclude unused prefixes
HST: I will consider that in my action
Picking up use-when again
MZ: A good start, but not sufficient?
... Consider 2.6.1.1 and 2.6.2.1, collections
VT: That is covered in 3.9
MZ: Yes, I missed that
... OK, I can live with HST's proposal
... Ah, what about variables?
VT: Yes, we should add that
RESOLVED (tentative, pending NW agreement): Adopt HST's proposal from
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009N
ov/0023.html and adding no variable bindings to the list in 3.9 of things
which are empty/not there
MZ: What about date-time ?
... XPath is required to give the same result every time you call it --
could there be a problem here?
MZ: XPath spec says current-date-time should give same result, but we don't
guarantee that in XProc
HST: Whatever mechanisms XPath impls use to guarantee should be independent
of how they're being used
... so should work for us too
... So if NW's happy, he will change the spec., and if he isn't we'll hear
from him
Default XML Processing Model draft
[15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
HST: One substantive question
... What values do we use for fixup-xml-base and fixup-xml-lang?
... We added optionality to XInclude wrt these on request, because of the
impact they were having on validation
<MoZ> [16]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#c.xinclude
<MoZ> [17]http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#base
"An XInclude processor may, at user option, suppress xml:base and/or
xml:lang fixup."
4.5
AM: I am happy for these to be 'on' for the default proc. mod
PG: So this sets something on the top of the bit you include
HST: Yes, regardless of how much of the target you include
PG: I agree that fixup should be the default
HST: I will only observe that that's what we thought for XInclude 1.0, and
then we got feedback which led to the [18]optionality erratum.
PG: But the problem only arises if people are lazy
HST: I think it can arise without any foul on anyone's part
PG: Ah, yes, now I recall
... No problem with well-formedness
HST: Right
PG: The fixup only occurs at the infoset level
... and the problem arises when you serialise that and try to validate the
result
HST: Right
PG: The dpm is just for 'parsing' an XML Document, right?
... Doesn't cover RT's question about how a browser processes the output of
XSLT
AM: Correct. The DPM defines what the browsers will apply XSLT to
... so that's when XInclude gets done
<MoZ> we should talk about processing sequence of document
HST: This processing model is probably now misnamed
HST: This is not a model which itself imposes conformance requirements
anywhere in the XML stack
... rather it defines a term which other specs can now use, to mandate the
processing so defined
PG: We need to come back to this
HST: We will
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: HST to suggest wording to clarify the final sentence of
section 5.12 [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([21]CVS
log)
$Date: 2009/11/12 17:28:39 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-agenda.html
3. http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-minutes.html#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-minutes.html#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-minutes.html#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-minutes.html#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-minutes.html#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-minutes.html#ActionSummary
10. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009Nov/0010.html
11. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009Nov/0023.html
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#p.inline
13. http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01
14. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009Nov/0023.html
15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
16. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#c.xinclude
17. http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#base
18. http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata/#PEX16
19. http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01
20. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
21. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFK/EX1kjnJixAXWBoRAjb0AJ93vZb8See3GTWeiJumZ6p5kPHyHQCdEnY2
XwkerumV/hSMAOzjBZbynMA=
=kiZ+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 17:30:01 UTC