- From: Toman, Vojtech <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 11:20:36 -0400
- To: "public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
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