- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 09:47:22 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2mws6ludh.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 230, 24 Apr 2013
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Henry, 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: 1 May 2013
4. [8]Review of open action items
5. [9]Proposed changes to schemas/libraries
6. [10]Use cases and requirements?
7. [11]Zip and unzip steps?
8. [12]Bug 21003, errors in 4.4.1, p:xpath-context
9. [13]Bug 21004, errors in 5.7.1, p:variable
10. [14]Bug 21005, specification error wrt in-scope bindings
11. [15]Bug 21006, errors in 4.4, p:choose
12. [16]Any other business?
* [17]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [18]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [19]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/03/20-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting: 1 May 2013
Henry gives regrets for 1 May.
Review of open action items
Henry's items are on the agenda; no other progress reported.
Proposed changes to schemas/libraries
<ht>
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2013Mar/0028.html
Henry: It's a long message, but basically, I propose to adopt the defacto
model for non-REC but REC-related resources.
... Follow the approach of the RECs themselves, but a little less
formally. There's a URI that will be point to a mutable resource and
another, dated, URI, that will never change.
... We should update the spec to point to both the dated and undated URIs.
Norm: Attempting to recall why we don't point to the pipeline library. At
one time, you could import it if you wanted to; we had some weird rules
about what to do with steps that werent' recognized, etc.
... We changed the rules at some point so that you can't import it and
when we did that we removed the link; but I think we should put it back.
... It's still used in the construction of the spec itself.
Jim: I think we should put the link back.
Norm: I think we should do what Henry suggests.
... I think Henry can make the dated and undated URIs and I can propose
the spec errata.
Henry: Yes, I think that makes sense.
Norm: Any objections to this course of action?
Accepted.
A-215-02: Closed
A-215-04: Closed
<scribe> ACTION: A-230-01: Henry to create dated and undated versions of
the schemas and pipeline library in appropriate locations [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: A-230-02: Norm to propose errata along the lines
described in msg 2013Mar/0028 [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action02]
Use cases and requirements?
Jim: No progress. I'm trying to get zip/unzip done.
Zip and unzip steps?
Jim: No progress there either.
Bug 21003, errors in 4.4.1, p:xpath-context
-> [23]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21003
Norm: If the p:xpath-context is omitted, then the default readable port is
used, I believe. If it doesn't say that, we should make an erratum to do
so.
Henry: Yes, but what about Vojtech's comment?
Norm: I think what I said still applies; the default readable port is used
if there's no p:xpath-context and it's explicitly not an error if there's
no default readable port. The context is simply undefined.
<ht> Agreed
Norm: (with the standard XPath 1.0 hand wave at what undefined means)
<scribe> ACTION: A-230-03: Norm to propose the erratum to resolve bug
21003 [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action03]
Bug 21004, errors in 5.7.1, p:variable
-> [25]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21004
Jim: This appears to just be an editorial error.
Norm: I bet it's a cut-and-paste error by the editor.
... I think the solution is simply to remove the apparently conditionality
of the select expression.
Norm:Something like: s/If a select expression is given, it is/The select
expression is/
<scribe> ACTION: A-230-04: Norm to propose the erratum to resolve bug
21004 [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action04]
Bug 21005, specification error wrt in-scope bindings
-> [27]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21005
Henry: It happens in 2.6.1.1.
... The note in 'variable bindings' should be amended to be more precise.
There's no straightforward referent for the phrase 'that variable' in the
note.
<scribe> ACTION: A-230-05: Henry to propose an erratum that fixes the
phrase 'that variable' in the note in 'variable bindings' in 2.6.1.1
[recorded in [28]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action05]
<ht> "An option that has neither a specified value nor a default value
will not appear as an in-scope variable. Consequently, an attempt to refer
to that variable will raise an error." should change to "An option that
has neither a specified value nor a default value will not appear as an
in-scope XPath variable. Consequently, an attempt to refer to an XPath
variable whose name is the name of such
<ht> an option will raise an error.
Norm: Looks good to me.
<scribe> ACTION: A-230-05: Norm to put Henry's erratum text in the errata
document [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action06]
Henry: There's still a a problem because I don't think 'in-scope specified
options' is well defined.
... No, I take that back. I think we can just use the phrase 'specified
options' in clause 5 or perhaps in a new clause 6. Yes, a new clause 6
probably.
Norm: What happens if you say p:namespaces binding=fred and fred is an
optional option with no value; is that just a gaping whole in the spec?
Henry: Seems likely.
... But I think the proposed cure is way more expense than is necessary.
... I think it's true if it's a static error if the namespace binding
isn't there, but it's also a dynamic error if something you thought was
going to be there turns out not to be.
Norm: Yes, I agree that special casing that one issue seems better.
Henry: The reason it's not statically known is that you might have a
declared step with a declared option with no default which is invoked in
two different places in the pipeline and in one of those places the value
is supplied and in the other it isn't. So without complete NP-complete
flow analysis, you can't tell whether it's going to be called with or
without the option.
... You could imagine we make a rule that says that static analysis has to
make the worst case assumption....but that seems unreasonable.
Norm: I'd like to do an experiment or two.
<scribe> ACTION: A-230-07: Norm to setup a test case for the optional
option/p:namespaces binding and see what implementations do. [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action07]
<jf_2013> +1
Norm: We'll see what happens in the wild and then come back to this one.
Bug 21006, errors in 4.4, p:choose
-> [31]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21006
Jim: Why aren't p:when and p:otherwise steps?
Norm: Uhhh...because they don't inherit from their preceding siblings etc.
<ht> because they can't appear outside of p:choose
<ht> Right, "substitutions for the body" -- think of it that way
Henry: I'd be tempted to actually think about re-casting the whole section
or at least adding a note that says something along those lines. i.e.,
processors should behave as if the p:choose was the p:choose was replaced
by a step consisting of the chosen branch.
Norm: It's ugly; there's static and dynamic behavior.
Henry: Yes, but that's about picking which one is chosen. The fact that
you don't know until runtime which one is going to be chosen, but you have
to know the static features of the step, you get a whole bunch of
constraints that follow naturally.
Norm: Henry, would you be willing to review the section and see how much
violence you think would be inflicted if we attempted to recast it along
the "substitutions for the body" idea?
<ht> yes, happy to give that a go
thanks
<scribe> ACTION: A-230-05: Henry to examine our discussion of p:when etc.
and see if it can be easily recast along the lines of 'substitutions for
the body' without the confusion about subpipelines. [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action08]
Any other business?
Jim: When might we be able to have another f2f?
I'm going to Balisage and TPAC.
scribe: We could attempt to have a f2f of our own.
<jf_2013> 15-26 July I am on holiday
Norm: There's been some discussion of a meeting in July
<jf_2013> I can do any other time in July
Norm: In Edinburgh. Not specifically XProc, but...
<jf_2013> +!
Henry: If Jim and Vojtech could come to Edinburgh or London...
<jf_2013> London better, but I hvae friends in Edinborough
<ht> Week of the 8th would be good
<scribe> ACTION: A-230-06 Norm to send email about possibly meeting in
London/Edinburgh the week of 8 July [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action09]
<ht> Sounds like 10--12 July would suit
Jim: I'm giving a talk on XProc at XML London.
Norm: I'll consider getting to London in mid-June
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: A-230-01: Henry to create dated and undated versions of the
schemas and pipeline library in appropriate locations [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: A-230-02: Norm to propose errata along the lines described
in msg 2013Mar/0028 [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: A-230-03: Norm to propose the erratum to resolve bug 21003
[recorded in [36]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: A-230-04: Norm to propose the erratum to resolve bug 21004
[recorded in [37]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: A-230-05: Henry to propose an erratum that fixes the phrase
'that variable' in the note in 'variable bindings' in 2.6.1.1 [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: A-230-06: Norm to put Henry's erratum text in the errata
document [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: A-230-07: Norm to setup a test case for the optional
option/p:namespaces binding and see what implementations do. [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: A-230-08: Henry to examine our discussion of p:when etc. and
see if it can be easily recast along the lines of 'substitutions for the
body' without the confusion about subpipelines. [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: A-230-09 Norm to send email about possibly meeting in
London/Edinburgh the week of 8 July [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action09]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [43]scribe.perl version 1.137 ([44]CVS
log)
$Date: 2013-05-07 14:46:36 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2013/04/24-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#item07
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#item08
13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#item09
14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#item10
15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#item11
16. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#item12
17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#ActionSummary
18. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-agenda
19. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/03/20-minutes
20. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2013Mar/0028.html
21. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action01
22. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action02
23. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21003
24. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action03
25. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21004
26. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action04
27. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21005
28. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action05
29. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action06
30. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action07
31. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21006
32. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action08
33. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action09
34. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action01
35. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action02
36. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action03
37. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action04
38. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action05
39. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action06
40. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action07
41. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action08
42. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/04/24-minutes#action09
43. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
44. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 14:47:52 UTC