- 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
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 193, 05 May 2011
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Jim, Henry, Alex, Murray, Mohamed (via IRC)
Regrets
Paul, Vojtech
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* [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
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/04/21-minutes.html
Accepted.
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
XML.
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
profile.
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
good.
... 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
subset.
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
[13]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Norm mentions that XInclude is no longer in the profiles per the 21 April
discussion.
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.
Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to review the spec to see what the cost would be of
adding validation. [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([16]CVS
log)
$Date: 2011/05/05 14:50:22 $
References
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