W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > January 2015

XProc Minutes 28 January 2015

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:46:59 -0600
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <877fw6ucuk.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/01/28-minutes

[1]W3C

                                - DRAFT -

                         XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 263, 28 Jan 2015

   See also: [2]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Jim, Norm, Alex, Henry

   Regrets

   Chair
           Norm

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * [3]Topics

         1. [4]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         2. [5]Next meeting
         3. [6]Review of open action items
         4. [7]Any other business?

     * [8]Summary of Action Items

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

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [9]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/01/07-minutes

   Accepted.

  Next meeting

   4 Feb 2015, any regrets?

   No regrets heard

  Review of open action items

   Jim reports completion of A-260-01

   ->
   [10]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2015Jan/0007.html

   And A-260-02

   ->
   [11]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2015Jan/0009.html

   And A-260-03

   ->
   [12]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2015Jan/0008.html

   Jim: The open question is, for the use cases, I've culled some from
   previos versions.
   ... And written my own.
   ... I've also asked in public about the non-XML flows.

   Jim: Should we put these in the requirements document?

   Norm: If the WG agrees that they're use cases we want to take on for 2.0,
   then I think we can add them to the Use Cases and Requirements document.

   Jim: We put the use cases in and we traced them back to the spec; we also
   traced requirements back.
   ... Do we want to do that now? Not sure.
   ... I'll send them along be email and we can start with those and see what
   we want to do.

   Norm: Sounds good to me.
   ... You also sent mail about a p:sign step.

   Jim: Yes, I saw that we had discussed that previously.

   Alex: I think signatures in general, XML Signatures being a specific case,
   would be worth exploring.
   ... There's lots of code out there and it's a good thing. It seems
   possibly like two different steps.

   Some discussion of exec and eval

   Jim: I'll take a stab at p:sign for the XML case and the non-XML case.

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to mention use of metadata for this

   Henry: It occurs to me that as is the case with some other aspects of what
   you can consider ultimate outcome, some steps may be properly implemented
   as actually only adding metadata.
   ... It's perfectly coherent to say that I have an XML Signature step that
   only bites at the edge of the pipeline.
   ... It doesn't have to be the case that adding an XML Signature step means
   that thereafter what's flowing through the pipeline is encrypted.
   ... Also, wrt the observation about implementability, I think we have an
   opportunity to do a good deed and enlist help in doing it.
   ... I think the fact that XML Encryption is not widely used is a real flaw
   in the XML ecology and adding easy, straightfoward support in XProc v.next
   would be a huge encouragement to people to use it.
   ... So I think if we asked the community that does know how it works to
   help, they'd help because it's a win-win.

   ACTION A-26x-01: Norm to ask Frederick Hirsch for help with the encryption
   implementation parts.

   Henry: And finally, wrt use cases, I implemented a bunch of support for
   interactions with amazon web services with the Markup Pipeline for which
   the "B-case" that Alex mentioned was front-and-center.
   ... Take this 256 bit key as represented in hex and this string and
   encrypt it so that I can then send it to Amazon web services.

   Alex: I think that's just signed for Amazon

   Henry: Yes, that might be the case.

   Alex: Making that kind of API easier to use would be a very good thing.

   Henry: I'm pretty sure I used p:exec for the signature, but I'll drag out
   the architecture to look at.

   Alex: I'll take an action to collection some data too.

   Norm: I think we're drifting towards "we need to make OAuth easy from
   pipelines."

   ACTION A-26x-02: Alex to consider the requirements for making it easy for
   pipelines to talk to web APIst that use these styles of encryption.

   Jim: About the edges of the pipeline, are you thinking of a pipeline that
   just adds metadata to the document?

   Henry: Yes and no. What I was thinking of was a pipeline that has a whole
   bunch of stuff that constructs a document. At some point it wants to
   specify that some portion of the document should be signed.
   ... It should be able to do that at the point where that part of the
   document is in focus. This ought to be able to be used as a subpipeline
   for example where the whole document isn't in view.
   ... Suppose it took an XPath and a bunch of args, and said at this point
   in the pipeline, so the element identified by that XPath should be
   encrypted.
   ... Nothing happens except some metadata gets added to document so that
   *when it's output from the pipeline* the encryption will be performed.
   ... It amounts to instructions to the output step that go in the metadata.
   This is useful for other things, like setting the encoding for the
   document.

   Alex: So I have a bunch of questions that come from that: is this how the
   pipeline is deployed or effected by the information flowing through it.
   ... It could be a binding outside the pipeline or it could be something
   the serializer actually does.

   Henry: I'm thinking of the latter.

   Jim: I don't think we need to go deeper today, I just wanted to
   understand.

  Any other business?

   Jim: Where is TPAC? Japan?

   Norm: Yes, Japan. I'm hoping to go, but it's unclear.

   Alex: I'd like to go, I have a colleague there. I don't know if that's
   going to be possible.

   Jim: If we know we're going, we could start trying to get some interest up
   in that part of the world.

   <ht> I think that would be a great idea

   Some discussion of a f2f in Edinburgh in June. Still planning.

   Adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

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

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [13]scribe.perl version 1.140 ([14]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2015-01-28 15:45:38 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/2015/01/28-xproc-irc
   3. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/01/28-minutes#agenda
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/01/28-minutes#item01
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/01/28-minutes#item02
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/01/28-minutes#item03
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/01/28-minutes#item04
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/01/28-minutes#ActionSummary
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/01/07-minutes
  10. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2015Jan/0007.html
  11. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2015Jan/0009.html
  12. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2015Jan/0008.html
  13. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  14. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2015 15:47:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 28 January 2015 15:47:34 UTC