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

Re: XProc Agenda 20 Mar 2013

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:08:05 +0000
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bd2uugft6.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
Norman Walsh writes:

>             * [11]A-215-02: Henry to stage the dated and undated versions
>               of updated schemas and library.xpl

So, this actually requires some WG decisions, and some errata.

For the schemata, I propose to follow the precedent of XML Schema,
which for example includes the following text in Appendix A [1]:

  "Independent copies of this material are available in an undated
   (mutable) version at http://www.w3.org/2009/XMLSchema/XMLSchema.xsd
   and in a dated (immutable) version at
   http://www.w3.org/2012/04/XMLSchema.xsd---the mutable version
   will be updated with future revisions of this specification, and
   the immutable one will not."

followed by the SfSD itself.  So that means there are actually 3
versions of the relevant document:
 1) The one _in_ the XML Schema spec;
 2) The 'immutable' one in date space;
 3) The 'mutable' one higher up in date space.

Since our schemata are not normative, there need only be two copies.
I propose that the ones we point to now, which are actually at

  http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xproc-20100511/schemas/xproc.{dtd,rnc,rng,xsd}

be identified as the 'immutable' ones, and the 'mutable' ones be
identified as the ones at

  http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/schemas/xproc.{dtd,rnc,rng,xsd}

Taking the parallel further, this actually means editing the
'immutable' ones to include the following comment:

      In keeping with the XML Processing Model WG's standard
      versioning policy, the material in this [...] document will
      persist at the URI
            http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xproc-20100511/xproc.[...]

      At the date of issue it can also be found at the URI
            http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/schemas/xproc.[...]

      The schema document at that URI may however change in the
      future, in order to remain compatible with the latest version of
      XProc and its namespace.  In other words, if XProc or the XProc
      namespace change, the version of this document at
      http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/schemas/xproc.[...] will change
      accordingly; the version at
      http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xproc-20100511/xproc.[...] will not change.

      Previous dated (and unchanging) versions of this schema document
      include:

       http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PR-xproc-20100309/schemas/xproc.[...]
          (XProc 1.0 Proposed Recommendation)

       [etc.]

The 'mutable' ones would be edited to include the same text, which
will be updated as we release subsequent 'immutable' versions, e.g. in
a second edition of 1.0, or a WD of 2.0.

Since our schemata are not normative, I think we can go ahead and do
this 'in place'
  a) if the WG agrees that's what we want and
  b) provided Liam agrees we can (especially since I _think_ he has to
     implement the edits-in-place of the schemata.

Then we have an erratum to XProc 1.0, along the lines of

 Change the first para. of section D Pipeline Language Summary to read
 as follows

   This appendix summarizes the XProc pipeline language. Machine
   readable descriptions of this language are available in RELAX NG
   (and the RELAX NG compact syntax), W3C XML Schema, and DTD
   syntaxes, as follows:

     undated (mutable) versions: [rng],[rnc],[xsd], [dtd]
     dated (immutable) versions: [rng],[rnc],[xsd], [dtd]

   The mutable versions will be updated with future revisions of this
   specification, but the immutables ones will not.

Phew!  Not done yet, sorry.

library.xpl turns out to be a bit trickier, in one respect.  It's
present online today (at both

  http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xproc-20100511/pipeline-library.xml

and

  http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/pipeline-library.xml

but it's not pointed to from the spec. itself (as far as I can see).

So, as well as adding parallel comments to those two files, we'd need
to agree another erratum to _add_, further down in section D,
something similar to the proposed text for the schemata above.

So, for reflection and discussion at our next call (without me, which
is fine by me) or in two weeks.

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#normative-schemaSchema
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 17:08:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 20 March 2013 17:08:31 GMT