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

XProc Minutes 26 Jan 2012

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:13:09 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m239b2saqy.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-minutes

[1]W3C

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 207, 26 Jan 2012

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Henry, Norm, Vojtech, Jim, Alex, Cornelia, Carine

   Regrets
           Mohamed

   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, 2 February 2012
         4. [8]Review of open action items
         5. [9]Processor profiles WD published
         6. [10]Rechartering troubles
         7. [11]XProc V.next discussion
         8. [12]Any other business

     * [13]Summary of Action Items

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

  Accept this agenda?

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-agenda

   Accepted.

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/19-minutes.html

   Accepted.

  Next meeting: telcon, 2 February 2012

   No regrets heard.

  Review of open action items

   A-206-01: continued

   A-206-02: continued

   A-206-03: completed

   ->
   [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Jan/0041.html

  Processor profiles WD published

   Norm: Yay us.

   -> [17]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-xml-proc-profiles-20120124/

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to setup the last call comment list for new LCWD
   [recorded in [18]http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

  Rechartering troubles

   Norm: We got pushback on the charter; one of the possible solutions is to
   put FPWD of 2.0 in the charter.

   Carine: We got pushback because the goals weren't defined clearly enough.
   ... I was also surprised to see that issue of Rec-track documents as
   pushback. We've done that before for requirements and use cases.

   Some discussion of the clarity of our goals.

   Norm: So, basically, if we want to do V.next, we'll need to have a
   workshop or some other event to gauge interest. And if we don't put V.next
   in the charter, we won't get chartered.

   Carine: I think that's basically the case.

   Norm: Liam suggests putting FPWD of 2.0 and the possibility of a workshop
   in the charter. Maybe we should do that.

   Cornelia: And why wouldn't we do that, isn't that what we want to do?

   Henry: Yes, but earlier conversations suggested that we weren't ready to
   do 2.0.

   Alex: But we have community feedback for 2.0

   Henry: Yes, I think Liam just needs help writing that: point to wiki,
   point to mailing list.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to work with Liam to get a new charter proposal
   drafted along those lines. [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-xproc-minutes.html#action02]

  XProc V.next discussion

   Norm: I sent a list of low-hanging fruit items.

   ->
   [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Jan/0041.html

   Norm: And Vojtech observes that it doesn't anything about non-XML.
   ... And I think maybe we could do something smallish about that.

   Vojtech: I was thining especially about small stuff.
   ... Like if you could save binary data, with p:store.
   ... To make it more symetrical. We have p:load with p:document and p:data
   but we have nothing to store binary data.

   Norm: Yes, and an option on p:store seems pretty straightfoward.

   Vojtech: What I did is just what Norm did, I added an extension to
   p:store. But mine was a bit more generic in the sense that both and XML
   and non-XML data can flow through the pipeline. Whatever the p:store gets,
   it saves it.
   ... I was thinking about p:document and p:data and their relationship. At
   the moment I didn't want to change that much. I changed p:data so that it
   can produce binary data that's not base64 encoded.
   ... But I wonder if p:document, if you point it to binary data, whether it
   should do the same thing. Or if p:data should return XML.

   Norm: We should consider a proposal to do some work in this area; being
   able to load XML, HTML, JSON, etc.

   Jim: In the past, have we ever talked about p:document*s*?

   Henry: Yes, the possibility of having a set of documents flowing through
   the pipeline was there in the Markup pipeline. We did discuss it briefly,
   a while ago.
   ... But it's not low-hanging fruit. You have to talk about how to generate
   names for these things; it really has to be a map so that steps down the
   pipeline can extract documents from the set.

   Jim: But multiple p:document elements can be used. That might let you
   implement something like an ant fileset.

   Vojtech: So like in ant, you could specify a base URI and some sort of
   mask, so you get a sequence of files.

   Jim: it's a little awkward to work with sets of files and baking in at
   that level would remove the contortion from some pipelines.

   Norm: That seems like it might be low hanging fruit; you could implement
   it yourself.

   Jim: Yes, but it wouldn't bake in at the p:input level.

   Norm: Yeah, I can see that.
   ... I'll add that to the low-hanging fruit.

   Alex: With AVTs, I can imagine that we might be able to do the same sort
   of thing with HTTP URIs.
   ... So if you had a set of documents, you could iterate with numerical
   positions, perhaps.

   Vojtech: You can also imagine doing this on the p:load step.

   Jim: I've got one other thing. I did an experiment with my implementation,
   I enabled "AVT-everywhere".

   Norm: You mean you made "{" and "} expand everywhere all the time.

   Vojtech: But what if you want to include an XSLT pipelien?

   Jim: You can turn it on and off.

   Norm: I don't understand how that works.

   Jim: There are lots of details; I just made them up.

   Alex: That sounds a little bit like an alternative pipeline syntax.

   Norm: I'd like to see some examples.

   Norm runs through his list

   <jfuller> completely agree on xpath 2.0 going forwards

   Vojtech: There's also the question of optional not-specified options.

   <jfuller> [21]https://github.com/jpcs/rbtree.xq

   Discussion inevitably returns to parameters.

   Cornelia: I think another area we should be looking at is
   mashup-technologies. Those should be using XProc.

   <jfuller> be great Cornelia if you have any links to mashups tech

   Norm: I'll summarize again the low-hanging fruit and then I'd like
   everyone to think about whether or not that list is complete.

  Any other business

   None heard.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to setup the last call comment list for new LCWD
   [recorded in [22]http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to work with Liam to get a new charter proposal drafted
   along those lines. [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-xproc-minutes.html#action02]

   [End of minutes]

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

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [24]scribe.perl version 1.136 ([25]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2012/01/26 16:12:22 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-minutes#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-minutes#item08
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-minutes#ActionSummary
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/26-agenda
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/19-minutes.html
  16. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Jan/0041.html
  17. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-xml-proc-profiles-20120124/
  18. http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  19. http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  20. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Jan/0041.html
  21. https://github.com/jpcs/rbtree.xq
  22. http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  23. http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  24. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  25. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:13:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:13:49 GMT