W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2010

XProc Minutes: 8 Apr 2010

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:00:14 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m239z6kk8h.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 170, 08 Apr 2010


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Mohamed, Vojtech, Henry, Norm, Alex

           Paul, Murray




     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 15 Apr 2010?
         4. [8]Review of the Default XML Processing Model
         5. [9]Any other business?

     * [10]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [11]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-agenda

   Mohamed: Don't we get to see comments on the PR?

   Norm: Not until the review is over.

   Henry: Right. But it's not too late to ask your AC friends to vote!

   <ht> [12]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xproc/results

   [A member-only link]

   Henry: It would be good to get some more results to help Ian with the

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/25-minutes


  Next meeting: telcon, 15 Apr 2010?

   Mohamed gives regrets.

  Review of the Default XML Processing Model

   Henry: So, Norm and I cooked up this draft and it's received some internal
   review and I showed it to the TAG

   <ht> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html

   <ht> [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-minutes.html#item04

   <ht> [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/06-minutes.html#item08

   Henry: XProc discussions focussed on two questions: XInclude fixup, which
   we decided we wanted to keep, and given that we're no longer talking about
   this as a default, but rather we're presenting it as "this is something
   you can refer to". It's not a default, but a sort of preferred or baseline
   processing model.
   ... There was some suggestion that we ought to change its name before we
   publish it.
   ... The TAG also raised that question. DanC went even further and said "In
   order to avoid anyone thinking this was the one true model", why don't you
   define another one.
   ... I thought that was a suggestion at least worth considering.
   ... TimBL isn't happy, but I'm not sure we can do anything to make him
   ... You may recall that the other example that I often referred to was
   decryption/signature checking. When I returned to this this autumn, I
   concluded that it didn't make any sense.
   ... Because 9900/10000 times, decryption involves user interaction. It's
   bad form to include the keys in a message so that decryption could proceed
   ... So with some reluctance, I've taken it out and TimBL would like us to
   address it.
   ... Aside from changing the name, and perhaps defining a second model, I
   think we're ready to ask for FPWD

   Alex: Does it make any sense to have more than one model in this document?
   ... There are some obvious variants that are the next step, like

   Henry: The other alternative which I have mixed feelings about is to go
   the other direction: give a name to the bare minimum.
   ... No reading of the external subset, no XInclude.

   Norm: Does anyone know if you can tell Xerces *not* to read the external

   Henry: I don't know.

   Alex: Does it matter?

   <MoZ> [17]http://xerces.apache.org/xerces-j/features.html

   Norm: If modern parsers don't let you do it, then I'm not sure it's good
   to give it a name.

   Henry: I'm of two minds: I don't want to encourage folks to do it, but it
   is spec-compliant.

   Norm: If we want to go that direction, I'd be inclined to make XInclude
   optional. I don't really want to encourage application authors to do less
   than read the external subset.

   [18]http://apache.org/xml/features/nonvalidating/load-external-dtd set to

   Henry: I'd be inclined to keep the first two and get rid of the last two.

   Norm: I'd be inclined to keep the first three and lose the last one.
   Surely xml:id is free?

   Henry: I guess, but see your point about whether all parsers support
   ... I think, in fact, Xerces rejected a patch to support xml:id

   Vojtech: Yes, I think that's right.

   <MoZ> [19]https://cwiki.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1113

   Norm: So the two questions are, do we want to provide more than one, and
   what should we call the document.
   ... I guess if we supplied more than one, then something like "Parsing
   Profiles for XML" might work.

   Henry: I still think "processing model" is useful in the title What does
   the XML spec call this?.

   <MoZ> [20]http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-xml-proc

   Alex: Why not The Default XML Pipeline?

   Henry: I was thinking we should use the terminology that the language
   itself uses.
   ... XML Processor Profiles or something like that.

   <MoZ> +1

   Norm: I guess that works for me, though I worry that "profiles" is sort of
   overloaded these days.

   <MoZ> XML Processor Level à la CSS

   Norm: If we do more than one, then maybe "XML Processing Models" works

   Henry: Let's not hold up the discussion for any more discussions about

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry to fix typo in the bibliography where XML5e is
   referred to as XML4e [recorded in

   Henry: We've discussed at some length doing less as an alternative,
   there's also a doing more alternative. (1) Leaving it as it is, vs. (2)
   one or more w/o prejudice to which one.

   (1): 0, (2): 5

   Alex: Maybe one way to spin this is to divide the document into different
   kinds of user agents: "web browsers", "web service", "validating authoring
   tool", etc.

   Norm: It's an interesting idea, but are we sure it breaks down along these

   Alex: We could qualify it with validation, etc.
   ... The problem with the document is that it's the "default" model. For

   Henry: That's why I think DanC's suggestion is a good one. It'll make the
   document more useful and more used if we identify several points along the

   Alex: We would just be providing context.

   Henry: I'm a little nervous about that. It's likely to only get us

   Norm: I think I'd prefer to define what the pipelines are and let
   application designers decide which ones to use.

   Vojtech: But we have to give them fixed names, so that other specs can
   point to them.

   Norm: Absolutely

   Henry: I'm thinking "minimal", "basic", and "validating"

   Vojtech: I think they all have to be minimal.

   Henry: minimal, the one we have now that's recommended, and one more maybe
   that does validation.

   Vojtech: So folks will add to them. We should have a really minimal one.

   Norm: The one dividing line I see is, that there's no point defining
   pipelines that require additional parameters/options.
   ... So no XSLT or RELAX NG validation.

   Henry: I thought about xml-model and Richard raised xml-stylesheet. They
   are, after all processing instructions and we're talking about processing
   ... I guess the way to address that is with a few sentences that address
   those PIs.

   Proposal: Let's try to get this to FPWD. I propose we change the name
   (editor's discretion) and have minimal and basic models.

   Norm: Where minimal does 1, 2, and maybe 3. Basic is what we have now.

   Alex: So we're not going to say anything about the xml-stylesheet PIs?
   ... Browsers do that, having it codified as a basic option would be good.

   Henry: I think you may very well be right, but I'd like to think about it
   a bit.

   Alex: It would be great to have something to point to that we could say
   browsers *should* do.

   Henry: I see that, but let's get it out the door first.
   ... What should the short name be?

   <MoZ> procmodel

   <caribou> I thought it would avoid model in the shortname?

   Norm: Let's see what title we get and then figure it out.

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry+Norm to have the new draft ready for discussion
   next week. [recorded in

   <ht> Carine, I agree wrt model

  Any other business?

   Alex: Let's get AC reps to vote!

   Henry: I think we'll get to Rec w/o any difficulty even if we don't get a
   lot more votes.

   Norm: I think it just makes the press release, media fanfair easier if we
   have more votes.


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to fix typo in the bibliography where XML5e is
   referred to as XML4e [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Henry+Norm to have the new draft ready for discussion next
   week. [recorded in

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [25]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([26]CVS
    $Date: 2010/04/08 15:59:03 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#ActionSummary
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-agenda
  12. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xproc/results
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/25-minutes
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-minutes.html#item04
  16. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/06-minutes.html#item08
  17. http://xerces.apache.org/xerces-j/features.html
  18. http://apache.org/xml/features/nonvalidating/load-external-dtd
  19. https://cwiki.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1113
  20. http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-xml-proc
  21. http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  22. http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  23. http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  24. http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  25. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  26. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 16:00:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:48 UTC