W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > September 2007

XProc Minutes 13 Sep 2007

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:00:03 +0100
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m26429zem4.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/13-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

13 Sep 2007


   See also: IRC log[3]


           Andrew Fang, Paul Grosso, Rui Lopes, Alex Milowski, Michael
           Sperberg-McQueen, Henry Thompson (chair pro tem), Richard Tobin,
           Allesandro Vernet, Mohamed Zergaoui

           Norm Walsh

           Henry S. Thompson

           Henry S. Thompson


     * Topics
         1. Administrivia
               * Rollcall
               * Agenda
               * Next meeting
               * Minutes
         2. Comments on the draft of 11 September
         3. Proceed to Last Call?
         4. Split the spec?
         5. Test cases



   As above.


   HT: Accepted as published

  Next meeting

   HT: We will meet next in two weeks, provided we get to Last Call this week


   HT: Comments on these minutes:
   ... Approved as they stand

  Comments on the draft of 11 September


   AM: The appendix isn't there yet

   HT: True, but as it's non-normative, it can be added later

   AM: I have a draft for part of it, we could add it right away

   PG: I'd rather not do that, let's get the LC draft out, and add that in a
   subsequent draft when it's complete. There's a time issue here, with the
   Tech Plenary coming up
   ... No objection to the idea of the appendix at all.

   AM: Consensus was that we would have this appendix

  Proceed to Last Call?

   HT: Straw poll on 3 options:
   ... 1) Publish ASAP w/o any appendix
   ... 2) Publish same time with whatever Alex can supply by the time Norm
   needs it
   ... 3) Hold publication for agreed complete appendix

   PG: We could publish as is for last call, and publish a separate WG note

   AM: We can get the text I've written already in in just a few minutes

   AV: Sounds like option 2 is what you want

   <alexmilowski> Here's the text:

   <alexmilowski> Minus the "general" bit

   PG: (2) ; HT: (2); AM: (2) ; AV (2) ; RL (2) ; RT (2) ; AG (2) ; MZ (2)

   HT: Unanimous straw poll result

   Any objection to the editors being authorized to publish the 11 September
   draft as a public Last Call WD with the addition of a non-normative
   appendix giving guidance on Namespace fixup to the extent possible w/o
   delaying publication?

   RESOLUTION: to publish the 11 September draft as a public Last Call WD
   with the addition of a non-normative appendix giving guidance on Namespace
   fixup to the extent possible w/o delaying publication.

  Split the spec?

   HT: Discussion -- could do it later, not a substantive question

   AM: Prefer to keep it as one document, easier right now, and easier for
   consumers down the road

   MSM: People say it's not substantive, but it does affect something
   crucial, namely the ability to say that you conform to the spec.
   ... If we split the spec., and version the parts separately, will people
   end up having to say "conforms to 1.n of the spec and 1.m of the library?"
   ... Also, splitting would make the framework very abstract, or we need to
   allow ourselves to refer to examples in the library 1.0
   ... Does the library of steps make sense outside the context of the XProc

   HT: Anybody prepared to argue in favour?

   RESOLUTION: We will not split the spec. before going to Last Call

  Test cases

   HT: Some discussion about where they are going to come from has happened
   in email.
   ... Where is the energy going to come from for managing test collection?

   RT: Implementors will produce tests
   ... Lets wait and see what they look like, and if we can put them into a

   MSM: Would a task force help?

   HT: Indeed, has worked some times

   RT: Happy to work on test cases, but not until I need tests for my own
   implementation and am developing them

   MSM: Last Call ends?

   HT: 24 October

   MSM: Only 5 weeks to know what to say our test input to the CR decision
   will be
   ... That's pretty soon, if we don't have any serious pushback on the spec.

   HT: Two ways we could go -- push hard on tests right away, or lengthen the
   last call period

   MSM: Or just expect we will have some gap between the end of LC and the
   beginning of CR

   AM: This period is a really good time to focus on test coverage
   ... We can respond to questions by increasing test coverage
   ... an opportunistic approach -- test what seems
   tricky/controversial/novel to commentators

   HT: Likes the idea
   ... I agree that the whole WG should be focussed on testing for the LC

   MSM: That's OK by me, if the entire WG is willing

   HT: Anyone unhappy with guidance to the chair along these lines?
   ... So RESOLVED
   ... Congratulations all around


   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/13-agenda.html
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-xproc-irc
   [4] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/06-minutes.html
   [5] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html
   [7] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [8] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[7] version 1.128 (CVS
    $Date: 2007/09/17 11:57:08 $

Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 12:00:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:44 UTC