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

XProc Minutes 5 May 2011

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 10:51:16 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2aaf1urob.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/05/05-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 193, 05 May 2011


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Norm, Jim, Henry, Alex, Murray, Mohamed (via IRC)

           Paul, Vojtech




     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 26 May 2011?
         4. [8]Processor profiles discussion
         5. [9]Any other business?

     * [10]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [11]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/05/05-agenda.html


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/04/21-minutes.html


  Next meeting: telcon, 26 May 2011?

   Norm proposes to cancel 12 and 19 May

  Processor profiles discussion

   Norm: I haven't got anything new, but given that I'm canceling two week's
   meetings I thought we should have a meeting.

   Murray: I'd like to observe a logical inconsistency that keeps happening.
   Some time ago, XML was developed. Lots of folks are using angle bracket
   stuff that isn't really XML and calling it XML.
   ... You could fork on the standalone attribute. It seems to me that since
   this is the XML Processing Model WG, we should have a profile that does

   Some discussion of what exactly is out there (HTML excepted) that's called
   XML that isn't well formed.

   Norm: Ok, then I think a profile that does DTD validation would satisfy
   you, yes?

   Murray: I think so.

   Henry: We talked about DTD validation several months ago and decided
   against it. I'm not immediately persuaded to go that way now.
   ... There was some sentiment that we shouldn't be encouraging DTDs.

   Murray: But we're the XML Processing Model WG. We should either go back
   and say that XML should change or we should support validation. All I'm
   saying is that as we traveld own this road, we keep dropping things. There
   are probably lots of reasons to do that, but it just occurs to me that
   this is XML processing and one of the things you can do is validation.

   Norm: I suppose having a profile that does validation is a logical

   Henry: I think there's a sort of cross product. I'm not sure that
   validation could be added to several of these profiles.
   ... The profiles as they stand are necessarily nested within each other.
   If we define a further one, which is one of them plus validation, the
   question arises what about adding it to the others.

   Norm: Henry, if you're willing to look at the spec costs, that would be
   ... It probably only makes sense to add validation to the profile that
   reads the external subset.

   Henry: Why? There are documents that carry their DTDs in their internal

   Norm: Hmm. Yeah.

   Murray asks about profiles that have optional steps.

   Henry: We don't really have those, that would have a high cost.

   Alex: If you're using DTDs, you're in a particular world. I don't think we
   can necessarily satisfy everyone out there.

   Alex: Maybe we could try to satisfy just a subset of that world: DTDs
   without namespaces, for example.

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry to review the spec to see what the cost would be of
   adding validation. [recorded in

   Norm mentions that XInclude is no longer in the profiles per the 21 April

   Murray: Hey, I need XInclude for GRRDL.
   ... I wonder whether the name of the profile could be more descriptive of
   what it includes. So "browser's in 2011", "xml valid", etc.

   Norm: Yeah, Recommended was probably a mistake.

   Alex: I agree. I think we really should have a profile that's intended for
   web browsers.
   ... that has the word "Browser" in the title.

   Some discussion of XML in browsers...

   Some discussion of whether there should be a profile for what each of the
   browsers do.

   Murray: Possibly in non-normative appendixes.
   ... I'd like a chance to think about this offline.

   Norm: Let's take this up again at the next meeting.

   Murray: And getting XInclude back.

   Henry: We also need to reply to comments.

   Murray: We have WG meetings in Toronto preceding Balisage. Would anyone
   like to have a f2f in between?

   Henry: Not sure I could go.

  Any other business?

   None heard.


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to review the spec to see what the cost would be of
   adding validation. [recorded in

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([16]CVS
    $Date: 2011/05/05 14:50:22 $


   Visible links
   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/05/05-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2011/05/05-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/05/05-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/05/05-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/05/05-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/05/05-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/05/05-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/05/05-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/05/05-minutes#ActionSummary
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/05/05-agenda.html
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/04/21-minutes.html
  13. http://www.w3.org/2011/05/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  14. http://www.w3.org/2011/05/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  15. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  16. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 14:51:46 UTC

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