RE: XProc Minutes 24 Apr 2013

Re: Bug 21003, errors in 4.4.1, p:xpath-context
[23]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21003

I think that simply changing:

"In an XPath 1.0 implementation, if the context node is connected to
p:empty, or ***is unconnected*** and the default readable port is undefined,
an empty document node is used instead as the context. In an XPath 2.0
implementation, the context item is undefined." "

to:

"In an XPath 1.0 implementation, if the context node is connected to
p:empty, or ***p:xpath-context is absent*** and the default readable port
is undefined, an empty document node is used instead as the context. In an
XPath 2.0 implementation, the context item is undefined."

fixes the issue.

-----

Re: Bug 21006, errors in 4.4, p:choose
-> [31]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21006

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Oct/0012.html
and:
http://www.w3.org/2012/10/11-xproc-minutes.html

for some discussion of my attempts to address the issue.

-----

Regarding the F2F, the proposed July dates will most likely not work for me, although I can't tell for sure at this moment.

Regards,
Vojtech

--
Vojtech Toman
Consultant Software Engineer
EMC | Information Intelligence Group
vojtech.toman@emc.com
http://developer.emc.com/xmltech

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman Walsh [mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 4:47 PM
> To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> Subject: XProc Minutes 24 Apr 2013
>
> 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 15:21:32 UTC