XProc Minutes 12 November 2014


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

12 Nov 2014


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Norm, Jim, Vojtech

           Loren, Henry, Alex




     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting
         4. [8]Review of open action items
         5. [9]Jim's proposal to make p:inline optional
         6. [10]Norm's proposal to split the spec into two documents
         7. [11]Liam's message
         8. [12]Any other business?

     * [13]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?


   Norm thanks Jim for taking minutes.

   <jfuller> tbey were terrible


  Next meeting

   Proposed: 19 Nov 2014 does anyone have to give regrets?

   No regrets heard.

  Review of open action items

   <scribe> No progress reported.

  Jim's proposal to make p:inline optional

   Vojtech: Two things. If you have PIs or comments, you need to have a
   p:inline, but what does it mean


   Some discussion of what it means to have multiple top-level elements.

   Norm: No, I don't think we should do that.
   ... For exactly the reasons that Vojtech raised, I think if we have
   multiple top-level elements, you need the p:inline wrapper.

   Jim: I thought comments and PIs would always throw an error.

   Vojtech: No, if there's only one top-level element, they're ok.

   Jim: So instead of foreign element(s), you're saying foreign element (not
   plural) and go for the singular.

   Vojtech: The spec of p:inline is any element, but we also allow PIs and
   comments around it.

   Norm: I think if you have multiple documents, you need the wrapper.

   Vojtech: At the moment, if you use p:inline then comments and PIs are
   ignored outside the p:inline elements.
   ... If you remove the wrapper, then they become part of the document.
   ... Another thing, at the moment the exclude-inline-prefixes attribute is
   on p:inline and p:input.
   ... But I think the p:inline should be optional in the other places as
   well. On output, on connections, etc.

   Norm: I agree.

   Jim: I didn't propose that because I was trying to make the change very

   Norm: I think if the p:inline can be left out in one context, it should be
   legal to leave it out everywhere that it can occur.

   Jim: What about expand-text?

   Norm: I think that needs to be available on all of the possible parents of

   <scribe> ACTION: ACTION A-257-01 Jim to revise the p:inline proposal to
   cover all of the places where p:inline can occur and to handle expand-text
   as well as exclude-inline-prefixes. [recorded in

  Norm's proposal to split the spec into two documents

   -> [18]https://ndw.github.io/specification/

   Norm thinks he made it work.

   <jfuller> +1

   <jfuller> yes

   Norm: Consensus is that we should do this. The editor asserts it's
   entirely editorial. No technical changes except putting p:template and
   p:in-scope-namespaces into the steps document.

   Vojtech: There are also references to p:try and such. They are still in
   the language spec.

   Norm: Yes.

   Vojtech: The document could also be called something else; the compound
   steps are also "standard steps".
   ... I would expect them in the steps document, but that would probably not
   be as easy to do.

   Norm: But if we moved them all into the steps document, we'd really be
   back to a single document...

   Vojtech: I see that for p:declare-step or p:pipeline, but things like
   p:viewport or p:choose are more like standard steps that we provide out of
   the box.
   ... It's really just atomic steps.
   ... The main spec is compound steps and the rest of the language.

   Norm: That's right.

   Vojtech: On one level all these things like viewport and for-each are
   really just steps.

   Norm: So should we wait on splitting...

   Vojtech: No, but maybe we should consider moving viewport, for-each, etc.
   into the steps document.
   ... The second document is really a library of atomic steps; maybe that's

   <jfuller> I think its ok as well

   Proposal: Accept the two-spec version as the new consensus draft.

   No objections heard.


   Norm: I will make a pull request and make it so.

  Liam's message

   Norm: It's a useful collection of first-time-user-concerns.


   Norm: I propose that we make one-or-more issues out of these and see that
   we address them.

   The WG walks through Liam's message, muses about the changes.

  Any other business?

   None heard.


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: ACTION A-257-01 Jim to revise the p:inline proposal to cover
   all of the places where p:inline can occur and to handle expand-text as
   well as exclude-inline-prefixes. [recorded in
   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [21]scribe.perl version 1.140 ([22]CVS
    $Date: 2014-11-12 16:13:25 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2014/11/12-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-minutes#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-minutes#item08
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-minutes#ActionSummary
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-agenda
  15. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Nov/0004.html
  16. https://xquery.github.io/xproc-specification/langspec/xproc20/head/diff.html#p.inline
  17. http://www.w3.org/2014/11/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
  18. https://ndw.github.io/specification/
  19. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Nov/0007.html
  20. http://www.w3.org/2014/11/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  21. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  22. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 16:15:23 UTC