W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2002

XML Processing Model workshop strawpolls

From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:24:45 -0500
Message-ID: <E7AC4500EAB7A442ABA7521D18814397028D17B3@tor-msg-01.northamerica.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
This posting relates to Issue-13 "What is the meaning of a document
composed of content in mixed namespaces?" [1].

Here is a summary of the Q and A during the final session of the XML
Processing Workshop that was held last year [2].

A. Discussion of bootstrap process of XML parsing, Namespace
identification, XML:base calculation. 

1. a) How many think XInclude should be bootstrap: 2+DanC in abstentia. 
   b) How many think XInclude is an application choice: 17.

Conclusion: Majority do not believe XInclude is part of a bootstrap
process.

2. a) How many people would like schema validation to be bootstrap: 5. 
   b) How many people want it to be an application process: many.

Conclusion: Many do not believe the XML Schema is part of a bootstrap
process.

3. What about XLink (actuate onload) Bootstrap: 0, Application: many

Conclusion: No one believed that XLink (actuate on load) is part of a
bootstrap process.

B. Scope of a processing control language

1. a) full orchestration: 11 
   b) dependency/constrain language ([SZ] alternative forumulation:
could have this on a state of data, exit/entry conditions): 17 
   c) simple linear flow language (like Signature):15 
   d) nothing: 3 

Conclusion: Several different alternative forms of a control language
are possible but some feel this is not something that should be
standardized.

2. Processing control language used for (not exclusive)
   a) controlling processing (what must/should/is expected to
happen)(make it happen): 19 
   b) documenting processing (what must should/is expected to happen):
(in a spec, or carried in a doc): 15 
   c) document processing (what has happened) (in a log): 15 

Conlusion: Several different objectives of the control language were
identified.

3. Venue: if we do this work, where? (preference, pick 1) 

   a) XML Core: 15 
   b) XML CG: 1 ([EM]: other coordination issues need to take place,
dependencies with semantic web need to take place) 
   c) Wait for XML protocols to do orchestration: 0. 
   d) inter-WG task force: 5 
   e) new WG: 7 

Conclusion: Any new work on a processing language work belongs in the
XML
Activity and certainly should be done by a newly chartered WG even if it
was the XML Core WG.

/paulc

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/2001/07/xmlpm-minutes.html 

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
<mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com> 
Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 11:24:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:05 GMT