Technical discussion of 13 October 2016

[Extracted from WG meeting minutes]


6. Email discussions.

6.1 Lazy evaluation of static parameters

Possibility of lazy evaluation of static
parameters / variables / use-when / shadow attributes

  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-wg/2016Oct/0002.html ABr
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-wg/2016Oct/0003.html MK
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-wg/2016Oct/0004.html ABr
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-wg/2016Oct/0005.html
MK

MK: I think there are use cases where users want all static errors out, it's
up to the implementer to produce that. But for cases like docbook, you
often have too many.
SCA: in the document space, you can't always have all the elements in the 
schema
MK: we should not be too prescriptive about this.
SCA: you seem to find XPath even stricter.
MK: that particular statement that I've quoted, I'd prefer to phrase it like
"it must be possible to use the processor in a way that detects all static 
errors". I don't have a real problem with leaving it as it is.
AB: [example with a component that is never used in a use-when]
I hear consensus around the interpretation of the spec, I'm OK with that.
SCA: As far as I can tell, we're not going to make it better, so proposal
to leave it as is.
RESOLVED with no change


6.2  Invocation variants.
  See MK ACTION 2016-09-29-003:
  See also ACTION 2016-09-29-004: Abel to propose a table as described in
  #9 in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-wg/2016Sep/0001.html
  To be skipped until Abel action item is completed

AB: this action was about distangling all kinds of invocation we have and 
put them in a table.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-wg/2016Oct/att-0006/Invocation_methods_table.pdf

initial scope = initial context (item)  (in 1st table)
for apply-templates, it's the initial match selection

In the 3rd table:
dash in 4th or 5th columns mean inapplicable
only 7th column is the conclusion, the first 6 columns are describing 
the case.

AB: why would you try to invoke a mode that is not declared anywhere? a lot
of those scenarios don't really make sense. 
SCA: are we trying to review our rules with the goal to simplify?
Is it useful to put this in the spec?
AB: I hope it would be. 
SCA: it is very helpful, but also looks complicated.
MK: first goal is to understand what we have. Not necessarily reduce complexity.

4th table:
ex:init is an example initial mode name (That case is the most frequent)

SCA: thanks Abel for the work and explanations. What do we want to do?
MK: it's really complex.
SCA: do we need a SWAT team looking at this?
MK: I want to take a closer look and see if we can simplify. I propose
to follow up by email.
SCA: I'm happy with that proposal. 

RESOLVED to follow up email discussion in order to try simplification.


6.3 Component binding in inline functions
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-wg/2016Jul/0005.html
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-wg/2016Jul/0006.html

  See MK action ACTION 2016-10-06-002:

Waiting for that action, not discussed.



8. Spec Bugs


[XSLT30] Effect of use-when on xsl:package
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29919
RESOLVED with comment accepted.

  New ACTION 2016-10-13-002: MK to implement AB's comment from bug 29919


[XSLT30] (editorial) What does "target attribute" mean?
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29920
MK: it's hard to define.
RESOLVED with roughly comment 1 proposal, refined if possible.

   New ACTION 2016-10-13-003: MK to refine and implement comment1 on bug 29919


[XSLT30] Abstract modes
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29921
RESOLVED as WONTFIX


[XSLT30] (probably editorial) xsl:evaluate as an optional feature
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29927
SCA: +1 to proposal to add it
RESOLVED add suggestion from bug

   New ACTION 2016-10-13-004: MK to implement AB's comment from bug 29927


[XSLT30] Discrepancy between serialization spec and XSLT spec on undeclare-prefixes
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29933
SCA: MK to try to simplify some of this.
AB: are we going to change the things specified in the serialization spec?
MK: we can make more liberal choices when there's a SHOULD, or stricter.
AB: do you agree that we can use a MUST raise an error in this case?
MK: yes

Received on Friday, 14 October 2016 10:19:44 UTC