- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:14:50 -0600
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87y4rge6px.fsf@nwalsh.com>
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
12 Nov 2014
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Jim, Vojtech
Regrets
Loren, Henry, Alex
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* [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
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
->
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Nov/0004.html
Norm thanks Jim for taking minutes.
<jfuller> tbey were terrible
Accepted.
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
<jfuller>
[16]https://xquery.github.io/xproc-specification/langspec/xproc20/head/diff.html#p.inline
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
narrow.
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
p:inline.
<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
[17]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
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
ok.
<jfuller> I think its ok as well
Proposal: Accept the two-spec version as the new consensus draft.
No objections heard.
Accepted.
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.
<jfuller>
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Nov/0007.html
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.
Adjourned.
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
[20]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/12-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [21]scribe.perl version 1.140 ([22]CVS
log)
$Date: 2014-11-12 16:13:25 $
References
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