W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2012

XProc Minutes for 5 Apr 2012

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:06:16 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2wr5no413.fsf_-_@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes

[1]W3C

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

05 Apr 2012

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Norm, Murray, Jim, Henry, Alex

   Regrets
           Vojtech, Cornelia

   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, 12 April 2012
         4. [8]Review of action items
         5. [9]Use cases and requirements for V.next

     * [10]Summary of Action Items

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Accept this agenda?

   -> [11]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-agenda

   Accepted.

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes

   Accepted.

  Next meeting: telcon, 12 April 2012

   No regrets heard

  Review of action items

   <scribe> No progress reported. All actions continued. Except Murray's :-)

  Use cases and requirements for V.next

   ->
   [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Apr/att-0005/WD-xproc-requirements-20120401.html

   <scribe> ScribeNick: ht

   MM: Alex M's draft from 4/06
   ... Some of the content is moved around abit
   ... Some stuff from the Wiki moved in to the introduction
   ... Added annotation to each use-case/req'd to identify their state
   ... So that we can do an audit

   NW: Two comments
   ... 1) Now that we have a document, it should be the location of record
   for Vnext use cases and req'ts

   JF: Should we in fact close off the wiki?

   NW: Not necessary, although put something at the top pointing to this
   doc't ASAP

   JF: I was worried about synchronisation

   NW: 2) There are use cases which we have satisfied, and those should not
   show up
   ... Either via annotation and stylesheet or by just deleting

   AM: Do we see this as a Vnext-only requirements doc't, or an update to the
   old one?

   NW: Could go either way

   AM: I'd like to at least clean up, or even get rid of, some of the early
   use cases, e.g. from me
   ... At very least don't make sense 'as is'

   NW: We could be _really_ good and include XProc pipelines that show how we
   satisfied the old ones
   ... What I really care about is distinguishing old from new, so we see
   what we really have to work on

   AM: I completely agree

   MM: Yes, the old stuff is there so we can do the audit

   AM: Is this all of the old ones?

   MM: Yes -- I started from the old source to do this, didn't remove
   anything

   JF: I think doing a case-by-case audit is a good idea

   NW: On telcon, or offline?

   <alexmilowski> Hmmâ*¦ having trouble with T-mobile â*¦ no signal at
   all. :(

   MM: I anticipated doing it offline
   ... I was hoping AM would make a pass

   HST: Note that AM has lost audio

   MM: I'll speak to him later

   NW: Right, so would everyone please have a go at reviewing the use cases,
   and if appropriate drafting an XProc snippets

   AM: I will have a look when I can, and work with MM
   ... What I'm missing is what we've agreed about the primary goals of Vnext

   <scribe> ACTION: NW to find the discussion of goals in the minutes and
   distill some prose for use in the Reqts Doc [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

   AM: Do we want to divy up the use cases

   ?

   NW: My thought was that we would give people a week to read this, and then
   decide on tactics

   AM: We did go over the req't doc for V1 -- did the outcome of that review
   turn up in the test suite?

   NW: In some cases, but there is no metadata which records that fact

   JF: Add tests to the test suite as we articulate new req'ts?

   AM: Could be difficult, e.g. for DB access

   JF: Test could be informal

   AM: I'd think the new req'ts docs is the right place for informal/prose
   test cases
   ... Indeed they are important, and need to be in the doc

   NW: So yes, that argues for leaving the old ones in, as long as their
   state (solved, won't fix, etc.) is easily evident

   AM: What happened with our charter renewal?

   NW: LQ has made a draft, I've reviewed it, it started up the chain, we
   will get it again

   AM: Hiccup?

   NW: Yes, but resolved -- we will be rechartered to do a VNext if the
   req'ts review says we need one

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: NW to find the discussion of goals in the minutes and
   distill some prose for use in the Reqts Doc [recorded in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [16]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([17]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2012/04/10 18:04:44 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#ActionSummary
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-agenda
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes
  13. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Apr/att-0005/WD-xproc-requirements-20120401.html
  14. http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  15. http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  16. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  17. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:06:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:06:48 GMT