Re: XProc Agenda 20 Mar 2013

ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) writes:
> 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

Yes.

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

I think I'd like to create a new place for them, perhaps

> 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

I think so. Anyone disagree?

I'm in favor of folding the steps in our p:template Note into the mutable
schemas. Anyone object to that?

>   b) provided Liam agrees we can (especially since I _think_ he has to
>      implement the edits-in-place of the schemata.

Ok.

> 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.

Good progress, though! :-)

> 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.

Yes, I think we should do that. Users can't (and must not) import
pipeline-library.xpl, but there's no reason not to point to it.

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

Thanks, Henry.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 512 761 6676
www.marklogic.com