W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > December 2011

XProc Minutes 01 Dec 2011

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:07:04 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2r50o1djr.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/01-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

01 Dec 2011


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Paul, Norm, Jim, Vojtech, Alex

           Mohamed, Henry, Cornelia




     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 15 December 2011.
         4. [8]Review of open actions/processor profiles progress
         5. [9]Use cases/requirements/charter for V.next
         6. [10]Any other business?

     * [11]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/01-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/11/10-minutes.html

   <jfuller> just updating [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/Processing/


  Next meeting: telcon, 15 December 2011.


  Review of open actions/processor profiles progress

   Henry, I think, has completed his actions. New draft published a few days
   ago: [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/diff.html

   Jim: I've looked through the draft with the idea of tracing our comments
   from cmsmcq and we have one outstanding thing, but everything else seems

   Norm: Thanks.

   Jim: Shall we look at that one?

   Norm: Yes, let's.


   -> [17]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/

   Jim: The outstanding point is 17, recursive XInclude processing. I wanted
   to ask Henry if he thought he had addressed it.
   ... Michael thought we should remind folks that XInclude processing is

   Norm: I didn't see it, but I don't have any objections to adding it.

   Jim: So shall I?

   Vojtech: Murray mentions it in the text he wrote.

   <jfuller> redo image for displaying profiles relation to each other

   <jfuller> definition of terms - EXPAND TERM GLOSSARY IN SECTION 1.1

   <jfuller> match existing processors to profiles

   <jfuller> integrate Murray rationale / Jim to suggest a short rationale
   for our picking each of

   <jfuller> CMSMCQ - Conformance

   <jfuller> address/tracking Vojtech comments

   <jfuller> TRACKING CMSMCQ Comments

   Jim: Those are my tasks. I'll add XInclude in there.
   ... There are other things that depend on my task getting done. There are
   a few other of cmsmcq's comments that are still pending my tasks.
   ... I should be done by tomorrow.

   Norm: Thanks, Jim. If you can get it done tomorrow we can try to make
   progress in email next week.

   Paul: I already sent in some comments.


   Norm suggests that we let the editor tackle them.

   Paul: Well, I think we should talk about swapping the sections.

   Norm: I'm reluctant to swap them.

   Paul: Ok, then just adding an explanatory sentence at the top of section 2
   pointing out that those terms are defined in section 3. I'm happy to leave
   that to the editor.

   <jfuller> +1

   Norm: So, Jim, are you happy to attempt to address these?

   Jim: Yes, I'm fine.
   ... Vojtech, you mentioned a couple of things last time. Have they been

   Vojtech: Let me see...
   ... Yes, I think so.

   Jim: And in section 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, are those better too?

   Some discussion of those comments especially wrt unexpanded entity

   Vojtech: Let me take a look at my comments and get back to you.

   Alex: I'm looking at Henry's note about what he changed; at the f2f, I
   think we had issues with the sections we're discussing.
   ... It sounds like Henry thinks he's done. But yet, this section has the
   same reference problem.

   The group looks through f2f minutes for discussion and actions.

   Alex: Yes, there they are in the minutes of 31 October.
   ... But there's no action.

   <Vojtech> Regarding the Unexpanded Entiry Reference prose in 4.2.2, I was
   wondering at the f2f whether that item should be there at all. But I think
   that Henry's new prose is clear enough and I was just confused.

   Some discussion of the term "EII" which clearly needs to be expanded.

   Alex: I guess I need to review it again and see if I'm satisfied.

   Jim: So should I add EII to the glossary?

   Norm: No, I think you should expand EII to Element Information Item

   Alex: What about numbering them or labeling them somehow and then just
   referring to the label?

   Norm: I'm worried that labeling will make it more confusing, but I'm happy
   to leave it to the editor to try to expand EII in a way that's clear.

   Some discussion of how to improve section 4.2.

   Alex: Should I try to hash it out with Henry?

   Norm: That seems reasonable. Jim's got a lot of things on his plate so I
   think if he did this last that would give you time.

   Jim: Yes.

   Alex: Ok, I'll see what I can do.

   Norm: Why don't we say this: Jim will work on his items, Alex you try to
   close the loop with Henry and come up with a revision, and if you can't
   reach Henry today or tomorrow, Jim just makes the minimal fix of expanding
   ... If we got agreement on everything except 4.2, I think that'd be

   Jim: These are related to the issues you raised, right Vojtech?

   Vojtech: Well, somewhat. In a different way.
   ... I've gotten used to this section now, so maybe with the picture it
   could be improved.

   Jim: Right, I have a new draft of the picture.

   Norm: I have one other comment. I hate the word "outcomes" in 1.1

   I think "data models" is much clearer there.

   Paul: But we wanted to avoid the word data model.

   General agreement.

   Paul: The agreeement at the f2f was that we'd take itout.

   Norm caves. "Nevermind then"

   Norm: Any other comments about the draft today?
   ... OK. I think it's coming together quite well.

  Use cases/requirements/charter for V.next

   Norm: I've heard nothing from Liam about the charter. I don't think
   there's been much other discussion.
   ... Is there something that folks would like to talk about?

   Alex: Shouldn't we try to make some progress?

   Norm: Yes, do you have a specific suggestion?

   Alex: Henry and I were talking about the binding work that I'm doing.

   Norm: Yes, I encourage you to write that up!

   Jim: I've been doing some work with XProc to manage Hadoop jobs. I could
   write that up.

   Alex: Do we want to engage the community on xproc-dev?
   ... We're going to get a bunch of stuff.

   Jim: I think we're busy on the processing models document; we'll make more
   progress after, I think. I'm thinking of doing an XProc training day
   before XML Prague.

   Alex: We also need to do some marketing.

   Jim: Well, marketing and community building. I think we need to start
   something grassroots. That's why I was thinking the training thing would
   be a good way to generate some reusable training materials.
   ... Having the ability to download standard pipelines would be great.
   ... I can try to get some articles written.
   ... Someone from Rackspace added XML Calabash to the Maven repository.

   Norm: With my chair's hat on, I find it hard to formulate next steps.
   Partly I think we just need to get the processing model document finished.

   Alex: Yes, let's get that done. And keep updating the wiki.

   Norm: Any parting comments, we're just about out of time.

   Jim: I think there's been a tiny little uptick in usage. That's

  Any other business?

   Vojtech: We're also seeing more commercial interest.

   None heard.


Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version 1.136 ([20]CVS
    $Date: 2011/12/01 16:04:28 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/01-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2011/12/01-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/01-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/01-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/01-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/01-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/01-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/01-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/01-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/01-minutes#ActionSummary
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/01-agenda
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/11/10-minutes.html
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/Processing/
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/diff.html
  16. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2011Apr/0003.html
  17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
  18. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2011Nov/0012.html
  19. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  20. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 16:07:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:50 UTC