2016 Amsterdam XProc Workshop [via Data Pipelining Use Cases Community Group]

As announced by Norm, CWI will be hosting an XProc Workshop on Sept. 26.

To my knowledge, there is no detailed agenda yet. I envision it to be an open
discussion on the future of XProc, including, but not limited to, these
questions:

  Who will implement the 2014-12-18 First Public Working Draft that was
republished as a WG Note on 2016-07-21?
  If so, to what extent?
  Who is interested in using which features of this WG Note XProc 2.0
specification?
  Or is there consensus that this spec is obsolete and needs to be replaced with
something else, if at all?
  If the WG Note spec is considered obsolete, are some implementors/users still
interested in porting some of the features to XProc 1.0 and make an inofficial
XProc 1.1 out of it?
  For both versions, “fictitious 1.1” and “WG Note 2.0”, where will we
maintain a list of corrigenda, interoperability conventions and extensions?
Directly in the archived spec or a fork thereof, on EXProc.org (that itself
needs further standardization and extension), or somewhere else?

Personally, I think that this WG Note 2.0 version contains many improvements
over 1.0 without necessitating rewriting every pipeline from scratch in a new
language, so I’d like to use most if not all of its new features,  rather
than sticking with 1.0 or migrating to the more radical 2.0 approach that Norm,
Alex and Jim presented at XML Prague this year. On the other hand, Achim’s an
my XML London talk discussed several deficiencies that need to be addressed,
mostly related to making sure that all implementations do
implementation-dependent or EXProc stuff in the same manner. For example,
explicit dependency declaration for steps with side effects is
implementation-dependent stuff that is relevant for interoperability but that
has been left underspecified.

I’m pretty convinced that XProc 1.0 is useful and the original 2.0 direction
(that ended in the WG note) was a sound evolutionary path that facilitated some
things and enabled others. Call me an angle bracket dinosaur, but in my view,
there was no need to redesign XProc from scratch. I like XProc as it is, and I
will like it even more with attribute/text value templates, arbitrary data
formats as input or output, XPath function libraries, etc. Besides, my company
and Achim Bernden (creator of MorganaXProc) are interested in
protecting/amortizing our investments in this technology.

Whether and where to maintain which specs is certainly a thing that we’ll need
to discuss in Amsterdam. I’m not sure where to maintain a list of discussion
topics though. This community group was created to collect use cases for a
future XProc version. I think that, for the time being, we can use it to dicuss
all things XProc here, particularly the upcoming workshop. On the other hand,
this site feels like Wordpress and I doubt that it offers Wiki-like
functionality by default for collaboratively working on the agenda. We can use a
github Wiki, either in a repo that Norm creates below https://github.com/xproc
or at another place where it is easy to add collaborators.

First, let’s see who is interested. I just created a Lanyrd event for the
workshop. I’d like you to register there. Registration is non-binding, just
that we get an estimate of the number of participants. The room will probably be
provided free of charge by CWI, and catering will probably be sponsored. So you
or your organization will only have to cover travel expenses.

— Gerrit (on behalf of neither Norm, who is organizing the workshop, nor of
the community group chairs; I was just getting a bit impatient and then acted on
the proven maxim: rush forward now, regret later)



----------

This post sent on Data Pipelining Use Cases Community Group



'2016 Amsterdam XProc Workshop'

https://www.w3.org/community/datapipelining/2016/07/23/2016-amsterdam-xproc-workshop/



Learn more about the Data Pipelining Use Cases Community Group: 

https://www.w3.org/community/datapipelining

Received on Saturday, 23 July 2016 23:22:26 UTC