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

XProc Minutes 12 April 2012

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:55:36 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2pqb4hl1j.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/12-minutes

[1]W3C

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 212, 12 Apr 2012

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Norm, Jim, Alex, Murray, Vojtech, Henry

   Regrets

   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, 19 April 2012
         4. [8]Review of open actions
         5. [9]Review of the draft requirements document
         6. [10]Any other business?

     * [11]Summary of Action Items

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

  Accept this agenda?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/12-agenda

   Accepted.

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes

   Accepted.

  Next meeting: telcon, 19 April 2012

   No regrets heard

  Review of open actions

   <jfuller> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-zip_unzip.html

   Jim, I've done some work on zip/unzip but it's still ongoing.

   Norm: Thanks, Jim. Send a pointer when it's ready for review.

   Norm reports that Liam has sent the charter to W3C management.

   Norm: Remaining actions are continued.

  Review of the draft requirements document

   Murray: I've been working on it. The draft is at the point now where what
   we need most is to determine if it's going in the right direction.
   ... The document as it stands now, the introduction is quite minimal.
   ... I've left sections 2-5 pretty much intact. I've added comments wrt the
   standard names for component inventory.
   ... I've drawn a list of all the specs from XProc 1.0 and dropped them
   into this document.
   ... Verified that all the items in 4.5 were covered at least to some
   extent.
   ... Then went on to list a bunch of specs that weren't in the requirements
   list but have been satisified.
   ... And then for the rest of the sections, there's very little commentary
   beyond a few editorial notes.
   ... In Appendix A, I've added references to all the specs that I think
   might be relevant.
   ... The collective input that I got out of the wiki and the mailing list
   and all the other sources, I've been trying to collate.
   ... Appendixes D through F reflect those changes.
   ... I added the list of categorized steps that Alex published a while ago.
   ... Hopefully it's becoming complete and useful on it's own.

   Alex: Going through section 5, there are a number of use cases which I
   would say we're able to satisfy if we stretch the definition of "satisfy"
   ... I can write a pipeline that satisfies the use case with some
   fabricated extension step.
   ... 5.10 for example, could be satisified if we had a digital signature
   step.
   ... A bunch of them are like that, they require steps that we don't have
   in our vocabulary.
   ... In other words, some we can write out and some require steps that we
   don't have. And some require interpretation of the use case.

   Norm: I think if we can satisfy a use case with a new step, we should
   collect up those steps.

   Jim: So you're looking for a definition of "satisfaction".
   ... For example, 5.9, run a custom program. We have an optional p:exec
   step, does that satisfy it? I think it does.

   Alex: I think of grouping these things into three categories: we can write
   a pipeline that satisfies the spirit of the use case, we could if we had a
   new atomic step, and we can't without making language changes.
   ... So 5.10, it's not clear how signing fits in, but 5.12, just requires
   any of a number of "store" steps.

   Norm: I think starting with a three-bucket cut makes a lot of sense.

   Jim: Would that be full, partial, and not?

   Alex: I don't think it's partial.

   Norm: I think we can say "use cases we can satisfy now, use cases we could
   satisfy with a new atomic step, and use cases we're not sure about."

   Alex: We've given users the ability to define their own steps, so we
   might, but don't have to, write it for them.

   Murray: So if we find a case like that, we add a new step to Appendix E
   and that informs our process.
   ... From my point of view, the use cases and requirements is fodder for
   the back section and we get there later.

   Alex: I like the idea of grouping things into three categories and we can
   finesse the middle category name.
   ... Maybe we can just give them labels without worrying about the subtlety
   of the descriptions.

   Jim: I'm happy to review them as well.

   Alex: I personally would like to see us write the simple pipeline that
   demonstrates the solution for categories 1 and 2 at least.

   Norm: I think that's consistent with what we said last week.

   Alex: That will also help us decide if it's easy or not.

   Norm: I think sending the solutions to the list is a good idea.
   ... Murray, can you checkin what you've got done by next Tuesday so
   everyone has a couple of days to review it before the next meeting.

   Murray: Certainly.

   Alex: And I'll try to get it checked in.

   Norm: I think the document is going in a good direction. Murray, are there
   any other questions you'd like answered before you continue?

   Murray: Not that I can think of.
   ... Feedback on the use cases would be really great.

   Norm: Any further comments?

  Any other business?

   None heard.

   Adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

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

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version 1.136 ([16]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2012/04/18 19:54:25 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/12-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2012/04/12-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/12-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/12-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/12-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/12-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/12-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/12-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/12-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/12-minutes#ActionSummary
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/12-agenda
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-zip_unzip.html
  15. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  16. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

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 19:56:15 GMT