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

RE: XProc Minutes: 8 Apr 2010

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:26:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30212F0B720@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Sorry I had to miss the meeting.

I'm not sure I appreciate all the considerations from
reading the minutes, but if we are going to create anything
even slightly beyond what we currently have in the document,
I would really like it to talk about xml-stylesheet if feasible.

paul


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-
> processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: Thursday, 2010 April 08 11:00
> To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> Subject: XProc Minutes: 8 Apr 2010
> 
> See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes

> 
> [1]W3C
> 
>                                    - DRAFT -
> 
>                             XML Processing Model WG
> 
> Meeting 170, 08 Apr 2010
> 
>    [2]Agenda
> 
>    See also: [3]IRC log
> 
> Attendees
> 
>    Present
>            Mohamed, Vojtech, Henry, Norm, Alex
> 
>    Regrets
>            Paul, Murray
> 
>    Chair
>            Norm
> 
>    Scribe
>            Norm
> 
> Contents
> 
>      * [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
>    publicity
> 
>   Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
> 
>    -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/25-minutes

> 
>    Accepted.
> 
>   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
>    happy.
>    ... 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
>    automatically.
>    ... 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
>    validation.
> 
>    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
>    subset.
> 
>    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.
> 
>    <alexmilowski>
>    [18]http://apache.org/xml/features/nonvalidating/load-external-dtd

> set to
>    false
> 
>    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
>    xml:id
>    ... 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
>    naming.
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: Henry to fix typo in the bibliography where XML5e
> is
>    referred to as XML4e [recorded in
>    [21]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
> 
>    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
>    lines?
> 
>    Alex: We could qualify it with validation, etc.
>    ... The problem with the document is that it's the "default" model.
> For
>    whom?
> 
>    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
>    continuum.
> 
>    Alex: We would just be providing context.
> 
>    Henry: I'm a little nervous about that. It's likely to only get us
>    enemies.
> 
>    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
>    models.
>    ... 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
>    [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
> 
>    <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.
> 
>    Adjourned.
> 
> Summary of Action Items
> 
>    [NEW] ACTION: Henry to fix typo in the bibliography where XML5e is
>    referred to as XML4e [recorded in
>    [23]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
>    [NEW] ACTION: Henry+Norm to have the new draft ready for discussion
> next
>    week. [recorded in
>    [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
> 
>    [End of minutes]
> 
>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> 
>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [25]scribe.perl version 1.135
> ([26]CVS
>     log)
>     $Date: 2010/04/08 15:59:03 $
> 
> References
> 
>    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 Friday, 9 April 2010 14:27:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 9 April 2010 14:27:09 GMT