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

Re: Update: XProc V.next Requirements and Use Cases

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:55:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CABp3FNK5eC7bWnMn9cnCfAD=qNqwBZ8MQZVrmhLHAC6XZAHXPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Here is my feedback on the current state of this document:

1. I think we should just call the next version XProc 2.0 instead of V.next.

2. wrt "Streaming" (end of section 2), we didn't really address
streaming at all in version 1.0.  There are constructs like viewport
that are possible to stream but that depends on the XPath used in the
match pattern.  As such, streaming is largely left up to the
implementor.  The question for version 2.0 is whether there is
something else we should do.

3. Looking at the design principles, did we really achieve "Small and
Simple" and "Straightforward Core Implementation."  There is always a
give and take between "making things easy to specify" and "making
things easy to implement."  I wonder if we want to re-craft these
design principles somehow?

4. Murray and I have discussed "4.1 Standard Names for Component
Inventory" and I believe that we really have two requirements packed
into one.  The first requirement is really what the title says:  "We
should standardize the names of atomic steps."  We already do that and
should consider doing more of it.

   The second part, which should really be its own requirement, is the
list of recommendations and other technologies for which we should
have atomic steps.  I think it would be good to explicitly list the
technologies we wish to address with our standardized step inventory
as a separate requirement.  That will allow us to categorize into
"must do" and "should do" as well.

5. We need to adjust our terminology.  We're now using "Atomic and
Compound Steps" instead of "Components and Steps."  Along those lines,
req 4.2 would be "allow defining new atomic steps."

6. Is req. 4.8 really satisfied?  Do we want to make this stronger?

...and more to come later.


-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:56:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:56:07 GMT