XProc Minutes 21 Aug 2013

See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-minutes

[1]W3C

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 235, 21 Aug 2013

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Norm, Vojtech, Jim, Alex

   Regrets

   Chair
           Norm

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: 28 August 2013 or at the face-to-face
         4. [8]Review of open action items
         5. [9]Face to face prep, updated requirements and use cases document
         6. [10]Any other business?

     * [11]Summary of Action Items

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Accept this agenda?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-agenda

   Accepted, as ammended

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/07/24-minutes

   Accepted.

  Next meeting: 28 August 2013 or at the face-to-face

   Next meeting: 28 August 2013

  Review of open action items

   A-217-03 completed

   A-231-02 completed

   A-228-01 overtaken by events

  Face to face prep, updated requirements and use cases document

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/requirements-v2-jim.html

   Norm walks through section 4

   Jim: I added the ????-mark items in section 4.10 from other lists I had

   Some discussion of p:empty and whether or not it's needed.

   <jf_2013> Alex orig email on empty
   [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2013Aug/0000.html

   It's used in parameter input ports, but those are going away

   Alex: I also use it in p:document
   ... Now that I've been reminded why we need it, I guess it's ok.

   Norm: All of the 4.x items are marked must/should except for 4.9; let's
   mark 4.9 must
   ... Let's move "allow multiple p:catch" up to its own top-level item,
   marked "should"

   Norm; So. Is that everything. More to the point, if that's all we did,
   would it be a success?

   Alex: Let's pull AVTs out as its own "must" thing. All the other syntactic
   simplifications are "shoulds"

   Norm: Yes, I agree.
   ... Off topic, but for the minutes, wrt loading extension functions, the
   spec currently says "thou shalt not", I think we may want to soften that.

   Some discussion of importing function libraries

   Jim: I think the goal is to allow for reuse of existing libraries.

   Norm: Well, I think it's also about allowing pipeline authors to write
   their own functions in p:when test expressions.

   <scribe> ACTION: A-235-01 Alex to provide a use case for the extension
   library item [recorded in
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2013/08/21-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

   Vojtech: Someone once asked about using XProc steps as XPath functions.
   ... Maybe we could allow functions to be created from XProc pipelines.

   Alex: Certainly, in my particular use case, I can do what I want with
   steps. But it's heavyweight.

   Norm: I think mapping steps to functions is an interesting idea.

   Alex: I wonder if we can find the message where that was requested.
   ... With respect to the extension library, if loading them was
   implementation defined, it would be nice if there was some way to make the
   dependency explicit, in metadata, perhaps.

   <jfuller_2013> Norm's cx:import reference
   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2013Aug/0031.html

   Norm: Back to face-to-face planning
   ... It sounds like we're happy with these requirements
   ... Coming out of the f2f, I want a publishable requirements documents

   Alex: I'd like to be done before TPAC

   <jfuller_2013> another link for ext funcs
   [18]http://norman.walsh.name/2013/08/20/extensionFunctions

   Some discussion of XML processor profiles

   Jim: Would it help if we matched each profile with a concrete example?

   Alex: Maybe, but let's review the comments more carefully before we add
   work to our plate

   Vojtech: Right, but if we add more perspective, then we run the risk of
   introducing new areas of contention

   Alex: It would be nice to arrive at the f2f with a concrete list of issues
   to address.

  Any other business?

   None heard.

   Adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: A-235-01 Alex to provide a use case for the extension
   library item [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2013/08/21-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version 1.138 ([21]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2013-08-21 15:01:39 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2013/08/21-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-minutes#ActionSummary
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-agenda
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/07/24-minutes
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/requirements-v2-jim.html
  15. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2013Aug/0000.html
  16. http://www.w3.org/2013/08/21-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  17. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2013Aug/0031.html
  18. http://norman.walsh.name/2013/08/20/extensionFunctions
  19. http://www.w3.org/2013/08/21-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  20. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  21. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/