Minutes for XProc WG telcon of 15 Dec 2005

Draft minutes are now available:

   http://www.w3.org/2005/12/15-xproc-minutes.html

Text copy below:

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

15 Dec 2005

   Agenda

   See also: IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Norm, Jeni, Paul, Henry, Alessandro, Andrew, Eric, Michael,
           Richard, Rui, and_Alex

   Regrets

   Chair
           Norman Walsh

   Scribe
           Norman Walsh

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Welcome and introductions
         2. Administrivia
         3. Face-to-face meeting at the Tech Plenary?
         4. Meeting on 22 Dec 2005?
         5. Meet on 22 Dec?
         6. Review of charter and deliverables
     * Summary of Action Items

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   <ht> Norm, are you going to try to be like our hero PaulG and chair _and_
   take minutes?

   <ht> Or will we need a scribe?

   ht, I'm going to try today at least :-)

   <ht> OK, I'll be available if you need me as fallback

   <scribe> Scribe: Norman Walsh

   <scribe> ScribeNick: Norm

   Date: 15 Dec 2005

  Welcome and introductions

   Scribe decides not to attempt to record introductions.

   Norm asks if the WG minds having Rui as a guest this week as he hasn't
   finished the invited expert process. No objections.

   Chair thanks the members for their introductions.

  Administrivia

   Zakim: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot

   RRSAgent: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent

   RRS Agent: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent

   <alexmilowski> port issue?

   <AndrewF> http://cgi.w3.org/member-bin/irc/irc.cgi

  Face-to-face meeting at the Tech Plenary?

   <MSM> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/tp6groups.html

   <PGrosso> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html is the only URL for
   the TP info to date.

   We have two days of f2f space at the Tech Plenary outside Cannes on M/T
   the 27/28 Feb 2006

   Regrets from Jeni for the f2f

   Proposed: to hold the f2f meeting at the Tech Plenary as planned.

   Resolved

  Meeting on 22 Dec 2005?

  Meet on 22 Dec?

   <MSM> telcon regrets Richard, Alessandro

   Regrets for 22 Dec: Richard, Ale1

   Next meeting: 22 Dec 2005

   In general we'll meet weekly at 11:00 EST on Thursdays

   <alexmilowski> Are there definitions of the WG acronyms on
   http://www.w3.org/2005/10/tp6groups.html ?

   Eric wonders if we can change times. Norm proposes we stick with this
   until the f2f

   <scribe> Cancelled: 29 Dec 2005; next meeting after 22 Dec will be 5 Jan
   2006

   <richard> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Processing.html

   Group page: http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=38398

  Review of charter and deliverables

   Charter: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/xml-processing-model-wg-charter.html

   <MSM> Charter:
   http://www.w3.org/2005/10/xml-processing-model-wg-charter.html

   Public group page: http://www.w3.org/XML/Processing/

   <scribe> ACTION: ht to update administrative page with pointers to
   relevant docs (Charter, etc.) [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/12/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

   We'll do most of our work on the public page

   Norm takes a run through the charter

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to wave a big stick

   HT points out that there are two kinds of WGs (broadly) ones that are
   inventing new stuff, ones that are standardizing existing technology and
   working on interoperability. We're in the latter group and are well placed
   to work quickly.

   AlexM wonders how others feel about the charter and if there's consensus
   regarding the goals

   AlexM: I have two hot buttons: extensibility and streaming pipelines

   Richard: Scripting language has two parts: having a way to specify a
   sequence of processes and to talk about what form the data is in as it
   passes through the process. It would be nice if we could do the former
   without constraining the latter
   ... One could imagine describing a pipeline without talking about data
   models and have different implementations that did the same thing with
   different data models

   <MSM> Richard, do you mean one implementation that passes SAX events at
   the process boundaries, and one that passes a DOM around, and one that
   passes XML (or NSGML) around?

   <richard> yes, that sort of choice

   <MSM> +1

   Eric: Richard has a good point; those can be separated and we shouldn't
   enforce a particular data model
   ... Wonders if the use cases we have today can be met with this kind of
   implementation
   ... It's not necessary that V1 be able to do everything in every pipline
   language. We should try to get the bulk of the use cases and let
   individual vendors provide extensions for the rest.

   Rui: I think there should be some kind of registry so that we can have
   common components that do the same thing in different implementations
   ... different implementations should be able to get the same results with
   the core components

   ht: If I understand Rui correctly, it addresses one of the weaknesses of
   the original Sun pipeline note which is the awkardness of having to have
   indirection to identify what each stage of the pipeline does

   <rlopes> exactly

   ht: If you had a registry, you could identify small names for the
   processes that do things, like registering "XSLT" for the XSLT 1.0 process

   richard: proposes that URIs could be used to identify such components;
   there will be some standard (and some non-standard) components and they
   will need to be named
   ... it would be nice if you could abstract away exactly how the data is
   provided to these components
   ... on the one hand you have a scripting language and on the other hands
   you have components that describe the kinds of inputs that they accept

   ht: I'm going to signal early that I think the hard question is going to
   be conditionals and whether or not we have some form of conditionality.
   The driving force behind answering that is probably going to be error
   handling. I'm not sure I have a clear opinion.

   MSM: one goal for the first deliverable: I'd like to propose that the spec
   be able to be short; no more than 15 normative pages.
   ... The Algol 60 report is 17 pages.
   ... It ought to be implementable by a desperate perl hacker in a week or
   two.
   ... I'm nervous about the second deliverable. I think it may not be
   possible. While I agree that there are contexts, like browsers, where it
   makes sense to have a default processing model, but there's a lot of
   pressure to force XML away from a declarative semantics and towards an
   imperative semantics and its going to be difficult to resist that pressure
   if we aren't resolute.
   ... I think it's a trap to assign imperative semantics to the !DOCTYPE
   declaration or the existinance of a schema location hint.
   ... Those are declarative statements, not requests that processing occur
   ... It's very difficult to describe a default semantics without becoming
   imperative.

   <PGrosso> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-proc-model-req-20040405/

   Chair encourages WG members to contribute use cases that they feel the
   should be solved by the core language

   Richard asks why the Core WG requirements document isn't in the charter

   Norm suggests oversight.

   <Jeni> Thanks Norm!

   <Jeni> bye

   <ht> Norm, presume you will link the minutes from the public page?

   <ht> Or just email them. . .

   <rlopes> bye

   <ht> Michael, some status info on #xmlschema for your delectation . . .

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: ht to update administrative page with pointers to relevant
   docs (Charter, etc.) [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/12/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
    
   [End of minutes]

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.