- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:52:43 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m28vjt5yyc.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
23 Feb 2012
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Alex, Henry, Vojtech, Cornelia
Regrets
Mohamed, Jim
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Accept this agenda?
2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
3. [7]Next meeting 8 Mar 2012
4. [8]Review of action items
5. [9]Review of comments on processor profiles
6. [10]Plans for V.next
7. [11]Any other business?
* [12]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/02-minutes.html
Accepted.
Next meeting 8 Mar 2012
Accepted.
Review of action items
A-206-01: Completed.
A-206-02: Continued.
A-207-01: Continued.
A-207-02: In progress.
Review of comments on processor profiles
Norm: None so far except for cmsmcq's comments on the last editor's draft.
... We'll wait until next meeting after the comment period has closed.
Plans for V.next
Norm attempts to summarize, with kudos to Vojtech for an excellent XML
Prague talk.
Norm: I think working on a concrete use cases/requirements document would
help.
Cornelia: I think that's the right way to proceed.
Norm: Any volunteers to edit?
Alex: I did it last time, I could try.
Norm expresses concern about Alex's time commitments.
Alex: What about Murray?
Norm: If he showed up more often...
Vojtech: It'll be interactive, because we don't know what we want to focus
on.
Alex: It's most just a matter of getting it setup.
Norm: Alex why don't you and I try to get something started.
... Any issues to talk about today?
Alex: What about parameters?
Norm attempts to summarize.
<ht> I guess the hard questions are the use cases that Jeni raised which
drove us to the complexity in the first place
Some discussion of using an option of type "parameters" that contains a
map.
Alex: I think the question is how to make this usable.
... I have a lot of pipelines where I have a set of options that come in
that need to be turned into parameters.
... Using XQuery and XSLT steps, I have lots of parameters that are bound
from pipeline options.
... There's the question of orchestrating this stuff such that the maps
I'm using are connected correctly.
... What's the default map? In the context of a particular pipeline, if
I've put parameters in a bag, I have to be able to access them.
Norm: Listening to your description, I wonder about order.
Alex: Aren't we talking about scoping here?
Norm: Yes, maybe.
Alex: You can think of it as another set of inputs, but conceptually it's
not a straight-up port like we've talked about in the past.
... You can determine when things are dynamically computed.
... Or that should be the goal.
Norm: We clearly need a concrete proposal here.
Alex: A proposal should outline why we didn't like parameters as ports and
how the proposal improves the situation.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to write up an alternate parameters proposal in a
little more detail [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Vojtech: Alex often wants to change options into parameters, maybe it
might be possible to pass parameter maps or options in scope to the step.
Norm: Very clever.
... Yes, being able to list either maps of parameters or options would be
nice.
Vojtech: Moving options and parameters closer together would be good.
Alex: Dealing with mutable vs. immutable values is also an issue. I often
have a common set that comes in from the outside that I then want to add a
few bits for just a step.
... Right now there's a bunch of with-params on the step right now and
what we'd want to be able to say is that it's the global parameter set
plus these additions.
... One approach is simplistic at the step: just pointing at different
bags of parameters and outside of that there's some mechanism in the
pipeline that determines what's in scope at that point. That pushes all
the syntax out of the step and into the pipeline.
... The variables that are in scope can be declared outside of the
expression.
... We could do something like that.
Norm: I think that's a hard question to answer in the abstract, but it's a
use case we should keep in mind.
Alex: We should be working on use cases to demonstrate why the current
situation is unwieldy and how an alternate proposal would be better.
Any other business?
None heard.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to write up an alternate parameters proposal in a
little more detail [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version 1.136 ([18]CVS
log)
$Date: 2012/02/23 15:52:01 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes#item07
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes#ActionSummary
13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-agenda
14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/02-minutes.html
15. http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-xproc-minutes.html#action01
16. http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-xproc-minutes.html#action01
17. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
18. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 15:53:12 UTC