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

XProc Minutes 24 June 2010

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:03:37 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2wrtoo1t2.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/24-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 175, 24 Jun 2010


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Norm, Henry, Alex, Vojtech

           Paul, Mohamed, Murray




     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 1 July 2010?
         4. [8]Proposed errata
         5. [9]Comments on XML processor profiles
         6. [10]Any other business?

     * [11]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/24-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/17-minutes


  Next meeting: telcon, 1 July 2010?

   No regrets heard.

  Proposed errata

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-proposed-errata

   E01, update a non-normative note

   Norm: I propose we adopt the XML Core model and put it in countdown for a
   week. If no one objects next week, we'll accepted it.

   E02, clarify "decoded if necessary" in

   Norm: I propose we put it in countdown for a week. If no one objects next
   week, we'll accepted it.

   E01 and E02 are in countdown for a week.

  Comments on XML processor profiles

   -> [15]http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-proc-profiles/

   Norm: Issue 7, minimum processor profiles and XML Media Type

   Alex: There's a lot of variation in what browsers do. Some of the browsers
   are currently buggy.
   ... One way to think about what we're doing here is to say what browsers
   SHOULD do.
   ... There's no better place to put this. It's not related to HTML5,
   3023bis is being updated, it seems like there's an opportunity to
   reference this model from 3023.
   ... Browsers have a couple of ways of getting XML. One way is through the
   address bar. Another is via XMLHttpRequest.
   ... there are different expectations in the two cases; in the
   XMLHttpRequest case, scripts don't run and stylesheets aren't applied.
   ... There's very little out there that says what should happen, though the
   HTML5 folks think that XMLHttpRequest is relevant.
   ... If this was in the media type registration then that would be pretty

   Norm: Yes. So isn't what the browsers do basically the minimum profile
   plus applying stylesheets?

   Alex: No, because only IE reads the external subset.

   Norm: But we could say that that's what they should do.
   ... though I guess we could have a profile that doesn't read the external

   Alex: The question is, should we have a profile that lines up with what
   web browsers do.
   ... in both cases.

   Norm: So we could have two profiles for browsers, one for rendering and
   another for XMLHttpRequest.

   Alex: We'd have to decide what happens in both cases and whether or not
   we'd want to say anything about stylesheets.
   ... How much of what happens when you put an XML URI in the address bar
   should be default processing and how much should be application

   Norm: Doesn't Associating Stylesheets say what to do?

   Alex: No.

   Henry: It's clear that we can't say what to do without a new version.

   Alex: There are questions about how far we can go in our current charter
   ... From the W3C perspective, I think there should be a set of nicely
   orthogonal specifications that say what happens when you type a URI for an
   XML document in the address bar.
   ... The same should be true of the XMLHttpRequest object.

   Norm: I think the HTML5 effort is derailing all interest in XML from the
   browser vendors.

   Alex: But some of this is open source. I chased down xml:id in webkit for
   example, and found a bug that just says these three people decided not to
   do it.

   Norm: So a minimal-minimal profile that doesn't read the external subset
   would be one possibility. I'd be inclined to leave stylesheet processing
   as application behavior.

   Alex: Or we could have two profiles, one that builds on the other to do
   stylesheet processing.
   ... I think if we wrote this down carefully, it would get implemented.

   Norm: So what would you change in our current document?

   Alex: Right now, if you dropped XInclude from the basic profile, that
   would be what I'd like to see.

   Norm: Right, we could spread things out a little more so that we had more

   Henry: The question is, where do we do that?
   ... There's no place in our profile spec to say what browsers should do.
   The question then is, where do we lobby to have browser behavior changed
   to reflect one of those names.
   ... For example, in the current working draft of XMLHttpRequest there's a
   section that says "parse the XML per the XML Specification"...
   ... We could lobby the editor to change that to say that it SHOULD do
   whatever level of processing we think is appropriate.
   ... The problem I have for the browser case is that I don't know what spec
   ougth to change.


   Henry: There was going to be a "user agent something or other" good
   practices for browsers document, but I've never found it.

   Alex: There are two things here: the sequence of processing to produce an
   infoset, and secondarily the question of rendering.
   ... wouldn't it be nice to specify the order of transformations and an
   interpretation for them.
   ... including things like the application of fragment identifiers in the
   transformed HTML
   ... we could go that far.

   Norm: I'm not sure that's in scope and I'm not sure it would be greeted as
   a friendly ammendment to current processing.

   Norm feels deeply pessimistic about the future in this regard

   Norm: I'm not sure where this is going.

   Henry: I think in the short term we should focus on getting a WD of this
   document out.

   Alex: There is one thing we could do, we could factor out XInclude from
   the basic profile.

   Norm: Perhaps I'll try to add two more profiles so that we have a
   different place to start.

   Henry: I'd like to keep Basic as it is and add names below it. Or call the
   four step one "Standard" or something aggressively positive.

  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: 2010/06/24 16:02:48 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/24-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2010/06/24-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/24-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/24-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/24-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/24-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/24-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/24-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/24-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/24-minutes#ActionSummary
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/24-agenda
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/06/17-minutes
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-proposed-errata
  15. http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-proc-profiles/
  16. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  17. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 16:04:13 UTC

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