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

XProc Minutes 15 Apr 2010

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:35:23 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2iq7shdx0.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 171, 15 Apr 2010


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Paul, Alex, Henry, Norm, Murray, Vojtech





     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 22 Apr 2010?
         4. [8]Status update on PR request
         5. [9]The default XML processing model
         6. [10]Any other business?

     * [11]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/08-minutes


  Next meeting: telcon, 22 Apr 2010?

   No regrets heard.

  Status update on PR request

   Norm: Voting closes today. We've got 12 votes in favor, 1 with a change
   (the bug we want to fix) and 2 explicit abstentions.

   Henry: I hope I did what was needed.

   Norm: Yes. Looks fine to me, thanks Henry

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xproc/results

  The default XML processing model

   -> [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html

   Henry: I basically did what we said. We agreed to two changes.
   ... Make a new title, and this really is processor profiles, so I chose
   "XML processor profiles". The XML spec calls what we're talking about "an
   XML processor".
   ... I'm not wedded to the name.
   ... The other thing I did was add another profile.
   ... I tried to add another profile, to handle xml-stylesheet, but
   discovered that it was quite difficult.
   ... What the stylesheet PI does is lay off responsibility to other specs.
   ... I've reduced my expectations to just trying to get the correct infoset
   (or data model of choice). Once youv'e applied a stylesheet, or a GRDDL,
   it's not really "this" document anymore.
   ... My realizaation is that what I wanted to do with this spec was focus
   on getting the correct infoset. The fact that I couldn't do the stylesheet
   story in this spec didn't bother me as much as I thought it would.
   ... I also had the minor insight that if I was writing the media type
   registration for, say text/css, I might say something about the processing
   model profile but that would be in my spec, not in this spec.

   Murray: Are there two or three profiles?

   Henry: Two, and a discussion of what might be in some other profile.

   Murray: I'm sort of sympathetic to the ideas that Henry expressed. I
   wonder if Paul agrees?

   Paul: We can write a pipeline that tells you what to do with an XML
   document and a stylesheet PI, right?

   Norm: Well, for some PIs. For an XSL stylesheet, yes, but for CSS, it's
   less clear.

   Murray: You can load the pipeline into XSL or set a flag to indicate that
   it was amenable for XSL processing.

   Norm: Yes, you could set a variable or option.

   Murray: I thought one of the things you could do with the processing model
   is determine what kind of processing it's eligable for.
   ... So it might say that XSL was possible, or GRDDL, or other things.

   Murray: Would it be useful to write that pipeline?

   Henry: Two years ago, when I was trying to get my head around this with my
   TAG hat on, I produced the elaborated infoset document.
   ... There's a notion in that which I think I called "elaboration signals".
   Murray's just reconstructed that idea.
   ... You've started to list the things that might be in the document that
   are signals for future processing. For example, encryption.
   ... Yes, I think that's a useful idea. I've never been able to get
   anywhere beyond the observation that there are these things.
   ... It's always seemed to be the case that it's human beings that make the
   decision about what to do.

   Murray: From a QA perspective: the delta between what could be done and
   what was actually done could be interesting and useful.
   ... What Henry said earlier about the fact that what XSLT creates for
   styling is another document, with GRDDL, I guess the same thing is true.
   ... But in the GRDDL case, it's asserted to be a faithful rendition of the
   information in this document.
   ... Another thing about the infoset with respect to GRDDL is that GRDDL
   decided that you might not have expanded entities, or exposed fixed
   attributes, etc.

   Henry: My inclination is not to bless that. Just because they did it
   doesn't mean we should make it easy.
   ... They're going below what we (I) think is the minimum.

   Murray: We could give it a name and then explain why you shouldn't use it.

   Norm: My concern is that you can't process documents that contain
   unexpanded entity references. Or documents that aren't namespace
   well-formed for that matter.

   Some further discussion about what the minimum profile means: it expands
   all entities, fills in attribute default values, etc.

   Henry: On a completely different topic, what should our short name be?
   ... I'm tempted by xprof, but I think the linguistic similarity to 'xproc'
   is too confusing.

   Paul: I suggested 'xml-proc-prof'. An abbreviation of processing profile.

   Norm: How about 'xmlprofiles'

   <alexmilowski> xmlpp

   Murray: It's not an XML profile, it's an XML processing profile.
   ... And why profile not model?

   Henry: My reasoning was that when a spec gives you a set of choices, which
   is what the XML spec does, then a particular set of values for those
   choices is what I undersatnd is meant by the word "profile"
   ... Model is just one of those generic words that's lost all meaning. What
   would it mean not to be a model? It's just a noun to put after processor.

   Norm: Assuming we clean up the editorial issues, would anyone object to
   publishing this as the first public working draft?

   Alex: I really wonder about the xml stylesheet PI issue. I would really
   like to say something about what browsers do, but maybe that's more than
   we can achieve.

   Murray: Browsers don't do any of this, do they?

   Alex: Web browsers do more-or-less apply the XML stylesheet PI.

   Some wandering discussion of user agents, media types, stylesheets,
   validation, etc.

   Alex: If we had a processor profile for "apply style" then what the user
   agent does could be described as "select a stylesheet, through some
   implementation defined means" then do the "apply stylesheet" profile.

   Henry: What I'd like to do is take this document and see if we can get
   other specs to reference it: HTML5, xxx+XML media types, etc.

   Alex: I don't disagree, I just don't know if section 4 needs some

   Norm: I'd like it out sooner and smaller so we can see what way the
   community goes with it.
   ... The community might love it or hate it and I can't predict which.

   Murray: I'd like to publish this soon. I'd like to see more detail in it
   about what we do with the infoset at each step in the process.
   ... Maybe with a catalog of infoset changes. And I wonder if as part of
   this process we wouldn't discover new info items to add to the infoset.
   ... Perhaps we discover that we set particular flags for every pipeline,
   shouldn't they just be in the infoset.

   Norm: Does anyone object to making more-or-less this document our FPWD?

   Murray: How about adding a paragraph or two about XML functions and how
   this document doesn't do that.

   No objections heard.

   Norm: Now we need a short name.

   Some proposals: xml-proc-prof, xppf,




   <alexmilowski> xml-proc-profiles


   Murray/Henry wrangle a little bit over the title again "profile" vs

   Henry: My focus here is what are the invariants that you can count on in
   the information you get, not how you get it.
   ... I don't see this as a collection of pipelines

   <alexmilowski> "Pipelines for XML Processors" :)



   <Vojtech> xmlp?

   <PGrosso> I'm liking xml-proc-profiles

   <ht> xml-proc-profiles

   Proposal: We use the short name xml-proc-profiles

   <Vojtech> the short name most likely will contain 'xml' and 'processing',
   the question is about 'model' and 'profile' - so I wouldn't include it


   Henry: I say we get this out by Monday and if no one objects before
   Wednesday then we go forward.

   Norm: Anyone object to that?

   None heard.

  Any other business?

   None heard.


Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [16]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([17]CVS
    $Date: 2010/04/15 16:34:39 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-minutes#ActionSummary
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-agenda
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/08-minutes
  14. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xproc/results
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
  16. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  17. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 16:35:58 UTC

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