- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:56:34 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2lj7t4bbh.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XmProc/2010/08/26-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 179, 26 Aug 2010
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Paul, Henry, Norm, Vojtech
Regrets
Mohamed, Alex
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, 2 September 2010?
4. [8]Comments on XML processor profiles
5. [9]What's the progression of this document?
6. [10]Possible new XProc 1.1 step: p:template
7. [11]Any other business?
* [12]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/12-minutes
Accepted.
Norm's action is continued. :-(
Next meeting: telcon, 2 September 2010?
Vojtech gives regrets for 2 September.
Propose to cancel 9 September.
Accepted.
Comments on XML processor profiles
Henry: I'd like to talk about whether people think Section 3 is useful.
-> [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
-> [16]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/05/wd-comments/
Norm: I like it. I think it's good to ground our work in the Infoset. I
just didn't have a chance to look at the detail.
Henry: I'm happy to let the public help with that.
... I don't like the layout, the "Whether the remaining information item
is present is implementation-defined" line is too subtle.
... I think I'd like to say "fix that", fix the other obvious editorial
problem wrt the word "ditto", and republish, asking for comments.
Norm: That seems fine to me.
Vojtech: Before we tried to stay away from using infoset terms. I wonder
if that's ok, or ...
Henry: I think it is. I don't know what else to do.
Norm: I fear if we don't ground it in the infoset, then it will either not
be grounded or we'll have to recapitulate the Infoset.
Vojtech: Does that mean we should use the infoset terms for, for example,
base URI, in the profiles?
Henry: I'm not sure, I think we chose that wording very carefully.
... I don't think there's any conflict between the specs.
Norm: I don't think we're obligated to update the language spec based on
our terms in this spec.
Henry: Ok. I'll try to have a draft ready in the next 10 days or so.
What's the progression of this document?
Paul: Does this document go through CR? Does it go directly to PR? What do
we need to do?
Norm: Good question.
... I guess we need to get the staff contact involved. I'd be a little
disappointed if we had to make it a Note, but it wouldn't be the end of
the world.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to touch base with the staff contact to see what
they suggest. [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Possible new XProc 1.1 step: p:template
Norm attempts to paraphrase the problem: making it easier to construct
fragments of XML from variables and expressions in an XProc pipeline.
Henry encourages us to look at the discussion of Richard Tobin's XML tools
functionality near the end of his first message.
Henry: As Vojtech observed, there are two things going on, abbreviating
the p:input and interpolation.
Norm: I find the change in the the content model of steps a bit
disturbing.
Henry: I also want the variable bindings to be on other ports.
Norm: I think you'll need to stick those in variables.
Henry: The template has to come from a secondary port so that you can
write things as I do in the reply to Vojtech.
Vojtech: My problem with the original syntax is that it's not clear how to
create elements in the XProc namespace and maybe there would be value in
being able to generate the templates dynamically.
Norm: I proposed p:interpolated-inline.
Henry: The problem I have with this is there's no match attribute. There's
a fundamental semantic difference, yours takes a document and does what it
does with it.
... whereas my proposal uses @match to change everywhere that matches.
Vojtech: How does that differ from putting this in a viewport?
Henry: Maybe it's not, but it's a lot more verbose.
... We're very clear in the document that the only bindings that are
visible to step implementations are the option and parameter bindings. And
for this to be implemented as a step would require us to break that rule.
The curly brace substitution has to be done by the step.
Vojtech: I proposed that we could do it with a parameter input port where
you'd pass all these bindings.
... We could add a new attribute to p:inline so that we didn't have to
have a different binding.
... Ideally it would be nice if we could make *any* kind of binding
dynamic.
Norm: You could give the binding a step and port for interpolation.
... You could say <p:inline dynamic="true" step="mystep" port="result"/>
Norm; Putting it on the binding does make sense to me.
Vojtech: I might want to have two inputs but only have one of them be
dynamic.
Norm: To cut the other way entirely, if we allowed AVTs in literal option
values, would that be enough?
Vojtech: I think we'd still have the p:string-replace quoting issues.
Henry: It might be a good idea to do that, but I don't think it solves
this problem.
Norm: I need to think about this some more.
Vojtech: Yes, there are two parts, enabling templating and deciding what
the substitution rules are.
Henry: Right. I don't want to go all the way to the bottom of the slippery
slope.
... I think saying that curly braces in literal content (attribute values
or text content) is enough.
Vojtech: We could do like p:exec and allow users to specify the quoting
characters.
Henry: We're doing just the part of XQuery syntax that does XPath
expressions, not full XQuery constructors.
<ht> <elt attr="{concat($a,'}')}"/>
<ht> <elt attr="{concat($a,'}}')}"/>
Some discussion of escaping curly braces.
<Vojtech> So how would I create the following document: <doc>{}</doc> ?
<doc> {{{}}}</doc>
Of course!
Norm: I think that's good progress on the issue.
Any other business?
Norm: I think TPAC registration and hotels are ready for booking.
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to touch base with the staff contact to see what they
suggest. [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([20]CVS
log)
$Date: 2010/08/26 15:55:48 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2010/08/26-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#item07
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-minutes#ActionSummary
13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/26-agenda
14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/08/12-minutes
15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
16. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/05/wd-comments/
17. http://www.w3.org/2010/08/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01
18. http://www.w3.org/2010/08/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01
19. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
20. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 15:57:14 UTC