- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 09:32:15 -0600
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <871t7rshkw.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See https://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/03/02-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 289, 02 Mar 2016
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Alex, Henry, Jim, Murray
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, 16 Mar 2016
4. [8]Moving away from an expression language
5. [9]Removing '@'?
6. [10]Any other business
* [11]Summary of Action Items
* [12]Summary of Resolutions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/03/02-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/02/24-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting, 16 Mar 2016
No regrets heard
<ht> Works for me -- I also am unavailable on 9 March
Moving away from an expression language
Alex: What about data literals from last week?
Henry: I think we reached violent agreement; the situation wrt media types
and literals is complicated and isn't going to be simple no matter what we
do.
... I think some of the discussion was confused but that's ok, we have
enough on the record to proceed.
Alex: Good.
Discussion of expression language issues
<jfuller>
[15]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2016Feb/0022.html
Alex: The variables question is open and maybe it can be discussed
somewhat separately.
Norm: But what about literals
Alex: If we make data literals easy, then you just do that.
... That's a story we can explain and if it's sufficient then it greatly
simplifies our language.
Norm: But then all we're left with is conditionals.
Some discussion of making the expression language pluggable.
Alex: That's what I was thinking about when I gave the quoted syntax at
XML Prague.
... Like make using $(...) or something like that. What goes on the inside
can be different things.
<jfuller> I think this is an interesting direction ....
Alex: The immediate thing that follows is what do I do if I have different
expression languages.
Norm: That's what I was saying earlier about the ability to declare the
current expression language.
Alex: I think I'd prefer to have a way to specify the default expression
language and provide another way to express a different one on a per-use
basis.
... Optionall, this one is "wonky CSV query language".
Murray: Two things: one is that you want information about the current
processor. The trace output needs to say that the expression language has
changed.
... As soon as you allow this, you're going to have people who want to
have conditionals composed from several languages.
Norm: Yeah, I'm willing to say "no". I think the 95% case is one
expression language throughout.
Jim: We could have our own minimal expression language: true/false,
boolean conditionals...
Alex: That's what I'd propose for Murray's case.
Norm: Yeah, that could work.
Alex: if you're just going to check the output of a step, then you could
say that empty is false and anything else is true.
... That covers a whole bunch of cases without introducing an expression
language.
Murray: What if the port doesn't exist? Does it spring into existence?
Alex: That's a good question. Is it an error is it just false.
Jim: How draconian or Postelian do we want to be.
Norm: Yeah, less draconion.
Jim proposes declared options; Alex muses about interoperability if we
have too many of those.
Henry: I wonder if tumblers are useful enough ... nah ... I just note that
paths work for JSON.
... It feels to me like 90% of my expressions are paths plus equality and
inequality.
Alex: Products like MarkLogic that can do XPath expressions over JSON are
really powerful.
Norm: So should we take as a direction exploring making the expression
language pluggable.
General agreement. No objections. Accepted.
Removing '@'?
<jfuller>
[16]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2016Feb/0023.html
Alex walks us through this thread.
Norm: We could make the separator "," or ";" required and then we wouldn't
need an explicit placeholder.
Alex: We need a syntax, but there's lots of room for innovation.
... Whatever we choose, we can use it in other places.
... Then we don't need '@', it's just port variables. If it's on the RHS
of ">>" we're assigning to it; if it's inside a step chain it's an input.
... It's up to the processor to figure that out.
Norm: I'm sold on trying to explore this. I never liked $1 and @1.
Alex: You just have to declare them or you get a default.
Jim: I like this approach too. I observe that the underscore could just be
"[]".
Alex: Yes, that's good.
... The only time this is a problem is if you have a generator that has no
inputs and produces output. They're common enough that we want to support
them.
Norm: This sounds like the direction we want to explore.
Alex: I'd like to explore the idea of using this compact syntax in lots of
places and see what it does.
<scribe> ACTION: Alex to make a proposal for the syntax document with this
grammar. [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Any other business
<ht> [18]https://github.com/xproc/notes/tree/master/design
Henry explains what's in this space.
Henry: I've been working on an example that may or may not be useful to
anyone else.
... I'm trying to work my way through an understanding of what we're
calling the API syntax.
... I'm not ready to go very far through this yet. But if you follow the
link in the README.
... This works in XProc 1. I'd like to understand what an XProc not-XML
version of the pipeline would look like.
<jfuller> great stuff Henry - give me an action Norm
<scribe> ACTION: Jim to attempt to cast this task in the current compact
syntax. [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
Norm: Very cool. Thank you, Henry.
<jfuller> my eyes hurt reading xproc v1 now ....
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Alex to make a proposal for the syntax document with this
grammar. [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Jim to attempt to cast this task in the current compact
syntax. [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.144 ([23]CVS
log)
$Date: 2016/03/03 15:30:57 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/03/02-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-xproc-irc
4. https://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/03/02-minutes#agenda
5. https://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/03/02-minutes#item01
6. https://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/03/02-minutes#item02
7. https://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/03/02-minutes#item03
8. https://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/03/02-minutes#item04
9. https://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/03/02-minutes#item05
10. https://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/03/02-minutes#item06
11. https://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/03/02-minutes#ActionSummary
12. https://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/03/02-minutes#ResolutionSummary
13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/03/02-agenda
14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2016/02/24-minutes
15. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2016Feb/0022.html
16. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2016Feb/0023.html
17. http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
18. https://github.com/xproc/notes/tree/master/design
19. http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
20. http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-xproc-minutes.html#action01
21. http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-xproc-minutes.html#action02
22. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
23. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2016 15:32:55 UTC