- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:15:05 -0600
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87sihoe6pi.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-minutes
> [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/
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 512 761 6676
www.marklogic.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 16:15:34 UTC