- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:07:52 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87wqegdi1z.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 245, 19 Mar 2014
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Henry, Vojtech, Alex, Jim
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: 26 Mar 2014
4. [8]Review of open action items
5. [9]Review response to bug 21005
6. [10]Review proposed errata
7. [11]Bugs against 1.0
8. [12]Any other business?
* [13]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/05-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting: 26 Mar 2014
No regrets heard.
Vojtech gives regrets for 26 Mar
Review of open action items
Norm has done some of his, see the errata document
Review response to bug 21005
-> [16]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21005
Jim proposes adding a may requirement to make static compilation possible.
Norm proposes that it should be a should at least.
Norm muses about why we have "optional options". In XPath 2.0 I think we
have more leeway because we can say that the default value is the empty
sequence.
The fact that XProc 1.0 conflates the notion of variable binding
across the static and dynamic contexts means that attempting
to compile XPath expressions in a purely static way will still
require determining whether or not there are bindings for all
the XPath variables at runtime.
<jfuller> +1
<ht> +1
<alexmilowski> +1
<ht> or /variables in the expression/
Norm: I added that to the bug. We'll see what the commenter says and get
back to adding errata shortly.
Review proposed errata
->
[17]http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/xproc/specification/blob/xproc10/10errata/proposed.html
Vojtech: The first comment I had was about p:choose;
->
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Mar/0016.html
Vojtech explains.
Norm: I think you're correct.
<jfuller> 'to invoke'
<jfuller> ?
Vojtech: Sometimes we say 'connected' and sometimes we say 'bound' and we
don't clearly define those terms.
Henry: I agree absolutely.
Vojtech: Does connected meaning consumed or consuming?
<ht> "If a (non-primary) output port of a compound step is left
unconnected"
Norm: I have an action to fix that.
<ht> "An output port may have more than one connection: it may be
connected to more than one input port,"
Norm: But I hadn't seen the connection to bound.
Vojtech: In 2.2 you end up with a different picture depending on which
side you look at.
Henry: In 2.2, three paragraphs apart, one use of connection is pull and
one is push.
<ht> So I'm glad to hear that Norm has an action to fix this
Vojtech: Another distinction between connected and bound: for output ports
it is an error if they remain unconnected. That made me realize that
connected means being consumed.
Norm: It just means ... connected
Vojtech: If you look at it from an implementation standpoint, pull or
push, it can be different.
<ht> Not just connected -- for _compound_ steps, the output port can be
connected twice
<ht> ... Once to pull its value
<ht> ... The other to push its value
Norm: Thank you, I see the problem more clearly now.
<ht> Yes, yes we are
Bugs against 1.0
-> [19]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21053
In the p:wrap case, unless you wrap "/", the base URI doesn't change.
Right?
<jfuller> what does p:base-uri() return
<ht> Base URI changes all over a document
<ht> If you mean the base URI property in the infoset
In the p:wrap case, unless you wrap "/", the base URI property of the
document in the infoset doesn't change.
Do we agree with that?
<ht> NOOOOIO
<ht> Because it's _elements_ that have base URIs!
Don't document infoset items have base URIs?
Vojtech: It feels to me that in p:wrap-sequence alone, if you wrap a
single document or 10 the base URI of the result should be consistent.
Norm: in the wrap-sequence case where we're creating a whole new document
with a new root element
Alex: I think it should be empty
<ht> NOTE: This is wrong, in the def'n of p:xinclude: "The included
documents are located with the base URI of the input document and are not
provided as input to the step."
<ht> We're not talking about document URI
<ht> +1
Norm: I think I heard "empty" as the proposed value for base-uri from
p:wrap-sequence, does anyone disagree?
None heard.
Norm: I think a p:wrap that wraps "/" should behave exactly like
p:wrap-sequence on that document, does anyone disagree?
None heard.
<ht> Note that that is _only_ on the document node and the document
element node
Henry: We need to fix XInclude. We're being too glib in talking about
base-URIs. All of the elements in the document potentially have base-uri
properties.
We shouldn't think about fixing this without doing fixup.
Henry: the part about the base-uri property is that it provides the base
for resolving URI references.
... It doesn't get copied but you have to look up the chain to your
ancestors until you find a base URI
<jfuller> base uri fixup reference -
[20]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xinclude-20041220/#base
Henry: What that makes me think is that the result should have a base URI
on the document node and that's it.
... It follows that if you wrap it, in order to make the relative
references work, you should copy the base URI onto the element that used
to be the document element and is now submerged.
Alex: If you think of it conceptually, they're equivalent to "this
XInclude" where this document has no URI/base-uri. Or it's embedded.
... I wonder if the outcome is similar.
... If you look at it from an XInclude perspective is it similar, is it
the same.
<jfuller> the right base uri fixup reference - base uri fixup reference
<jfuller> [21]http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#base
Alex: It would be nice if these things could work in the same way. We need
to think this through more carefully.
Norm: I'll make this base URI question an explicit agenda item for next
week.
Any other business?
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.138 ([23]CVS
log)
$Date: 2014-04-23 00:03:19 $
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11
Check for newer version at [24]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Succeeded: s/variables/XPath variables/
Succeeded: s/it/the base URI/
Succeeded: s/emtpy/empty/
Found Scribe: Norm
Inferring ScribeNick: Norm
Found ScribeNick: Norm
Present: Norm Henry Vojtech Alex Jim
Agenda: [25]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-agenda
Found Date: 19 Mar 2014
Guessing minutes URL: [26]http://www.w3.org/2014/03/19-xproc-minutes.html
People with action items:
[End of [27]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
References
Visible links
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2014/03/19-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-minutes#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-minutes#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-minutes#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-minutes#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-minutes#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-minutes#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-minutes#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-minutes#item07
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-minutes#item08
13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-minutes#ActionSummary
14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-agenda
15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/05-minutes
16. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21005
17. http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/xproc/specification/blob/xproc10/10errata/proposed.html
18. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Mar/0016.html
19. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21053
20. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xinclude-20041220/#base
21. http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#base
22. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
23. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
24. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
25. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/03/19-agenda
26. http://www.w3.org/2014/03/19-xproc-minutes.html
27. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 00:08:43 UTC