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

XProc Minutes 21 July 2011

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:07:12 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2hb6fk6zj.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XMLroc/2011/07/21-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 197, 21 Jul 2011


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Norm, Jim, Henry, Vojtech, Murray

           Paul, Mohamed




     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the preious meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 11 August 2011?
         4. [8]TPAC
         5. [9]Progress on XML processor profiles
         6. [10]XProc errata E10
         7. [11]Validation in the processor profiles note
         8. [12]Any other business?

     * [13]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-agenda

   Norm notes that he added XProc errata E10


  Accept minutes from the preious meeting?

   -> [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/14-minutes


  Next meeting: telcon, 11 August 2011?

   Henry gives regrets for 11 August and the three following weeks

   Jim gives regrets for 11 and 18 August

   Norm: I think we'll meet on 11 August anyway and survey the scene. We can
   agree to start again in September if August looks like a wash.


   -> [16]http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/

   -> [17]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2011/

  Progress on XML processor profiles

   Norm: Thank you Henry for the new draft.

   <ht> [18]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to update the comments list and propose an action
   plan to make progress [recorded in

   Norm: That will require considering the proposals we've discussed for more
   radical change in the direction of browser compatibility as well as
   detailed comments from cmsmcq and others.

   Henry: I think it would be useful to discuss what we might do wrt to the
   browser question.

   Norm: I think we need the bottom level of conformance to be what browsers

   Henry: I don't have a problem with that, and then lobbying to get HTML5 to
   reference it. I think the chances they will are small.
   ... I don't think we should jettison several of the other profiles to make
   space for that one.
   ... The bottom line is that there are an enormous number of XML
   applications out there that have nothing to do with HTML and do stand to
   benefit from making use of this spec. And they're more likely to do so.

   Norm: I think there was also concern about the word "recommended" in a
   profile name

   Henry: I'm happy to change that, even right now.

   Norm: I think another axis of concern was implementing XInclude in the
   browser. XInclude is only in a profile that reads the external subset and
   browsers won't.

   <Jim> as an aside ...
   now works with SAXON CE

   <Jim> spoke to Erik a few weeks ago in Zurich

   Henry observes that reading the external subset w/o validation is useful
   for attribute types.

   Norm counters that attribute types are mostly useful for ID attributes and
   we have xml:id so why bother.

   Norm reads through the profiles suggesting that on reflection the seem
   pretty good, with the possible wrinkle that you can't do XInclude w/o
   reading the external subset.

   Norm: Saying you do the basic profile with XInclude doesn't seem
   conceptually that different from saying that you do the modest profile and
   require validation.

   Henry: Exactly.

   Norm: So maybe we like where we are and we just need to deal with the
   detailed technical comments.

   Henry: Yes, but we probably should rename the "recommended" profile.

   Norm: I think "full" is the first adjective that follows "minimal",
   "basic", and "modest" in my mind.

   Jim: Full sounds good to me.

   Vojtech: They both sound like something that's good enough. If you want
   something "more fuller" how would you name it?

   Norm: Is there more?

   Vojtech: One of cmsmcq's comments is that this division into four profiles
   was arbitrary. One might have a different view. It's more about deciding
   what goes into each box.
   ... From that perspective, full might be bad because it might not be full
   for someone else.

   Henry: We could add some prose in a suitable place that describes why we
   named these particular profiles.
   ... but you could define your own based on this pattern.

   Vojtech: I think right now the feeling cmsmcq had was that it seems a bit

   Henry: Well, the answer is, I think, that thinking historically about how
   they came about...
   ... There is an inventory of low-level XML specs. And although they are in
   some sense independent, they are partially ordered.
   ... You can't really imagine requiring XInclude without xml:base.
   ... There are two sources of indeterminacy in what you get from a
   processor. One is how it interprets the flexibility that the XML spec
   itself provides and the other is which of the low-level specs it supports.
   The tableaux satisfies the former and the profiles we pick sort of walk up
   the partial order.
   ... We decided that there was no point picking the one off the bottom (no
   namespace support, no xml:base support), and after that I think it falls
   out pretty straightfowardly.

   Vojtech: I don't disagree, I just think the commenter wanted more of that
   explanation in the specification.

   Henry: Would what I proposed help, do you think?

   Vojtech: I think it might. We already have some of this in the background

   Jim: We could also just enumerate them, level 1, level 2, etc.

   Vojtech: Not just naming the profiles, but the stuff that goes in them.

   Henry: Yes, and I think we can consider this when we look at that comment
   in more detail.

   Norm: So I think my takeaway is we're willing to consider or even anxious
   to rename the top-level profile if it'll help, but otherwise we should
   proceed with addressing the technical comments that we got.

  XProc errata E10


   Norm: This addresses the issue Vojtech raised about the discussion of
   "error" as an "output port".
   ... Anyone think I got it wrong?

   Jim: Are these errata tied back to email messages on the list?

   Norm: No, but they probably should be. At least to the minutes where the
   decision was made. I'll try to be better about that.

   <ht> HST is happy with E10

   Jim: What about ancillary specs?

   Norm: I have an errata document for the p:template spec. But it's a note
   so we can just republish it if we want.

   Jim: And do you think notes are a good way forward?

   Norm: Yes.

   Henry: Me too.

   Jim: Should we be considering anything else for notes?

   Norm: I'm happy to, if anyone has suggestions.

   Jim; I think we should be active in publishing those kinds of notes.

  Validation in the processor profiles note

   Murray: I didn't think the antecedent of "this" was clear.

   Henry: Ok.

   Murray: Some of the specs refer to external declarations, what about the
   internal ones?

   Henry: The "required of conformant non-validation parsers" clause ties
   that one down. The spec doesn't give you any leeway there.

   Some discussion about the orthogonal nature of validation. You can
   complement any of these profiles with a statement that validation is

   Murray: Shouldn't we say why?

  Any other business?

   None heard.

   Henry: Give my regards to all and sundry in Montreal.


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to update the comments list and propose an action plan
   to make progress [recorded in

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version 1.136 ([24]CVS
    $Date: 2011/07/21 15:06:30 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2011/07/21-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item08
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#ActionSummary
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-agenda
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/14-minutes
  16. http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/
  17. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2011/
  18. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
  19. http://www.w3.org/2011/07/21-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  20. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2007/03/28/xinclude-processing-in-xslt-with-xipr.html
  21. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-proposed-errata
  22. http://www.w3.org/2011/07/21-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  23. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  24. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 15:07:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:49 UTC