W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ppl@w3.org > February 2013

Prerequisites for modifying XSL 2.0 spec or producing API

From: Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:21:58 -0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <9520.195.188.219.10.1360678918.squirrel@mail3.webfaction.com>
To: public-ppl@w3.org
Firstly, even if I'm repeating myself by saying it, it's good to see
active discussion taking place here again.  I would like to see that we
can channel the current energy into something of long-term use and value.

Secondly, I think that there's a few things that we need or need to think
about before embarking on spec changes or API specifications:

 - Buy-in from more of the CG members -- we've heard from a few
   people so far, but doing things properly will require a lot of
   email traffic and focus for quite a while, so if people we
   haven't heard from have objections or other things they'd like
   to see done, now would be a good time to air them

 - A copy of the WD -- "We" don't have a copy of the XSL 2.0 WD.
   Several of us could lay our hands on the last internal
   editor's draft that hasn't been made public, but we, the CG,
   don't have a clear-cut right to use it, and nor do we yet have
   a CG member-accessible source code repository to keep it in.
   Since the XPPL WG is/was a closed group, we would strictly
   speaking need Liam or someone within the W3C to make the last
   draft public and/or bless our use of it, and we'd need the
   infrastructure maintainers to make a Mercurial repository for
   us.

 - Review of existing requirements -- we should know to what
   extent the existing requirements cover what we're talking
   about

 - A common understanding of the area tree model -- the makeup of
   the area tree is described here and there in the text of the
   spec.  I don't know that there is a comprehensive description
   of the area tree that you'd use as the model -- the infoset,
   if you like, to deliberately use a loaded term -- for
   designing the objects and methods of an API.  Several of us
   have a mental model of how the area tree fits together, and
   some even have one in running code, but we, collectively,
   don't know whether we all have the same model in mind, and
   we've already had one question today about where the spec says
   you should write out the area tree.  (IMO, it doesn't say you
   have to, but others may disagree.)  Having a model of the area
   tree would also be useful if and when we get to other XSL 2.0
   requirements such as multi-volume indexes.

 - Use cases -- another aspect of knowing that we're all talking
   about the same thing

Regards,


Tony.
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 14:22:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 February 2013 14:22:22 GMT