W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > August 2013

XProc Minutes 28 Aug 2013

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:50:16 -0700
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2wqn5ak7b.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/28-minutes

[1]W3C

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 236, 28 Aug 2013

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Norm, Henry, Alex, Jim, Vojtech

   Regrets

   Chair
           Norm

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Review comments on XML processor profiles
         4. [8]Any other business

     * [9]Summary of Action Items

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

  Accept this agenda?

   -> [10]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/28-agenda

   Accepted.

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [11]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-minutes

   Jim points out a missing action.

   ACTION A-236-01: Alex to prepare a note with the table of use cases and
   solutions from V1.

   Accepted.

  Review comments on XML processor profiles

   Henry: On the question of validation, I see three possibilities.
   ... 1, say validation is so last century it isn't worth addressing. No one
   cares anymore.

   <jf_2013>
   [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2013Aug/0001.html

   Henry: 2, oh, all right, DTDs were a key part of XML, some of us still
   like them, so we'll add a fifth profile, the same as three or four with
   validation

   <jf_2013> XML Proc Profiles - [13]http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-proc-profiles/

   Henry: 3, give a normative paragraph that describes how to construct names
   for the validating versions.
   ... Not only will you say you could do it, we'll tell you how to do it.
   ... We could elaborate the last sentence of section 7 to say "we recommend
   the following language to be used..."
   ... I think I like 2 the least.

   Norm: I agree, DTDs really are last century.

   Jim: If there is validation, is the sequence implied?

   Henry: The only case where there's any dependency is in profile 4.

   Some discussion of the order in which validation can occur. In particular
   DTD validation during parsing and other kinds after construction of the
   initial infoset.

   Alex: Michael makes this point, he says there are eight or more, and
   that's why we're not doing it.

   Henry: On the other hand, this is a classic case of "if there's a
   complicated thing to define", leaving it to everyone else to do is less
   than helpful.

   Alex: But these are the base specs.

   Henry: But this conversation makes it clear that the implication of
   section 7 that you can say "I want the full profile with DTD validation"
   and be done and that's not remotely true.

   Alex: I'm not even sure we have a consumer for this spec, do we really
   want to add more complexity?

   Some discussion of whether or not anyone expects validation.

   Alex: No other format talks about validation, it's one of the reasons it's
   bad.

   Jim: Once you get to a significantly complex application, validation has
   to come into play.

   Alex: I don't disagree, but when people think about the first thing you do
   when parsing a document they aren't thinking about validation.

   Henry: I think we're all agreed it's going to be a layer, the question is
   are we going to give terminology and structure to that layer in this
   document.

   Jim: Or we could add an optional step to each profile.

   Henry: Edit 2.3 and 2.4 to put the hooks in for validation.

   Norm: I'm tempted to try to do the elaboration Henry suggests in section
   7. It would be an improvement to the specification irrespective of whether
   or not it satisfies Michael.

   ACTION A-236-02 Henry to draft a revision to section 7 that provide
   instructions on how to specify what you want with respect to validation.

   Discussion of the classification of facets

   ACTION A-236-03 Henry to draft a revision of paragraph 3 in section 1.1
   (or thereabouts) that makes explicit the fact that there are other facets
   (API, memory model, etc.) that are not relevant to this specification.

   Norm: With respect to standalone, I propose a new paragraph that says
   effectively, "standalone was a mistake, it doesn't work, we explicitly
   ignore it."

   ACTION A-236-04 Norm to draft a new paragraph for 1.1 that makes our
   decision to ignore standalone explicit and provides a rationale for it
   (wrong default, often incorreclty used, largely useless)

   Some additional discussion in which Norm observes that the phrase only
   occurs five times.

   Norm: So we could just reword those sentences in 2.x?

   Henry: Yes, go ahead.

   ACTION A-236-05 Norm to change the XPP spec to replace the phrase
   "corresponding to ..." with something more direct.

   ACTION A-236-06 Henry to remove the seventeenth-century capitalization in
   the XPP spec.

   ACTION A-236-07 Norm to provide a definition of the word "profile".

   Henry: The XML spec makes the distinction between reading and processing,
   that's why we do.

   ACTION A-236-08 Henry to respond to Michael about the distinction between
   reading and processing

   Jim: Didn't we do what Michael requests in "relations to current
   practice?"

   Henry: I thought so.

   Jim: I think Alex took a wack at it.

   Alex: I looked at what the webkit and firefox browsers do.

   <jfuller_2013> BRowsers and profiles (Alex) -
   [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2011Apr/0014.html

   Alex: Saying I have an XML parser and it doesn't do X isn't necessarily
   the right way to look at it, you can provide options, you can choose to
   get different profiles out of it.

   Jim: I think we don't have a backstop profile, one that doesn't do XML
   base

   Vojtech: I think we should have a reasonable intersection with reality, it
   may be fine if there are parsers that don't fall into any of our profiles,
   as long as there are enough that do.

   Alex: What a parser does in the context of an application is just too
   broad to make this kind of analysis useful.

  Any other business

   No more telcons until after the face-to-face.

   See you all at the f2f.

   Adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

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

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version 1.138 ([16]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2013-08-28 15:48:49 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2013/08/28-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/28-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/28-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/28-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/28-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/28-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/28-minutes#ActionSummary
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/28-agenda
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/08/21-minutes
  12. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2013Aug/0001.html
  13. http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-proc-profiles/
  14. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2011Apr/0014.html
  15. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  16. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 15:50:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 28 August 2013 15:50:48 UTC