- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:00:14 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m239z6kk8h.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 170, 08 Apr 2010
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Mohamed, Vojtech, Henry, Norm, Alex
Regrets
Paul, Murray
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Accept this agenda?
2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 15 Apr 2010?
4. [8]Review of the Default XML Processing Model
5. [9]Any other business?
* [10]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [11]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-agenda
Mohamed: Don't we get to see comments on the PR?
Norm: Not until the review is over.
Henry: Right. But it's not too late to ask your AC friends to vote!
<ht> [12]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xproc/results
[A member-only link]
Henry: It would be good to get some more results to help Ian with the
publicity
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/25-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting: telcon, 15 Apr 2010?
Mohamed gives regrets.
Review of the Default XML Processing Model
Henry: So, Norm and I cooked up this draft and it's received some internal
review and I showed it to the TAG
<ht> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
<ht> [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-minutes.html#item04
<ht> [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/06-minutes.html#item08
Henry: XProc discussions focussed on two questions: XInclude fixup, which
we decided we wanted to keep, and given that we're no longer talking about
this as a default, but rather we're presenting it as "this is something
you can refer to". It's not a default, but a sort of preferred or baseline
processing model.
... There was some suggestion that we ought to change its name before we
publish it.
... The TAG also raised that question. DanC went even further and said "In
order to avoid anyone thinking this was the one true model", why don't you
define another one.
... I thought that was a suggestion at least worth considering.
... TimBL isn't happy, but I'm not sure we can do anything to make him
happy.
... You may recall that the other example that I often referred to was
decryption/signature checking. When I returned to this this autumn, I
concluded that it didn't make any sense.
... Because 9900/10000 times, decryption involves user interaction. It's
bad form to include the keys in a message so that decryption could proceed
automatically.
... So with some reluctance, I've taken it out and TimBL would like us to
address it.
... Aside from changing the name, and perhaps defining a second model, I
think we're ready to ask for FPWD
Alex: Does it make any sense to have more than one model in this document?
... There are some obvious variants that are the next step, like
validation.
Henry: The other alternative which I have mixed feelings about is to go
the other direction: give a name to the bare minimum.
... No reading of the external subset, no XInclude.
Norm: Does anyone know if you can tell Xerces *not* to read the external
subset.
Henry: I don't know.
Alex: Does it matter?
<MoZ> [17]http://xerces.apache.org/xerces-j/features.html
Norm: If modern parsers don't let you do it, then I'm not sure it's good
to give it a name.
Henry: I'm of two minds: I don't want to encourage folks to do it, but it
is spec-compliant.
Norm: If we want to go that direction, I'd be inclined to make XInclude
optional. I don't really want to encourage application authors to do less
than read the external subset.
<alexmilowski>
[18]http://apache.org/xml/features/nonvalidating/load-external-dtd set to
false
Henry: I'd be inclined to keep the first two and get rid of the last two.
Norm: I'd be inclined to keep the first three and lose the last one.
Surely xml:id is free?
Henry: I guess, but see your point about whether all parsers support
xml:id
... I think, in fact, Xerces rejected a patch to support xml:id
Vojtech: Yes, I think that's right.
<MoZ> [19]https://cwiki.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1113
Norm: So the two questions are, do we want to provide more than one, and
what should we call the document.
... I guess if we supplied more than one, then something like "Parsing
Profiles for XML" might work.
Henry: I still think "processing model" is useful in the title What does
the XML spec call this?.
<MoZ> [20]http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-xml-proc
Alex: Why not The Default XML Pipeline?
Henry: I was thinking we should use the terminology that the language
itself uses.
... XML Processor Profiles or something like that.
<MoZ> +1
Norm: I guess that works for me, though I worry that "profiles" is sort of
overloaded these days.
<MoZ> XML Processor Level à la CSS
Norm: If we do more than one, then maybe "XML Processing Models" works
Henry: Let's not hold up the discussion for any more discussions about
naming.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to fix typo in the bibliography where XML5e is
referred to as XML4e [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Henry: We've discussed at some length doing less as an alternative,
there's also a doing more alternative. (1) Leaving it as it is, vs. (2)
one or more w/o prejudice to which one.
(1): 0, (2): 5
Alex: Maybe one way to spin this is to divide the document into different
kinds of user agents: "web browsers", "web service", "validating authoring
tool", etc.
Norm: It's an interesting idea, but are we sure it breaks down along these
lines?
Alex: We could qualify it with validation, etc.
... The problem with the document is that it's the "default" model. For
whom?
Henry: That's why I think DanC's suggestion is a good one. It'll make the
document more useful and more used if we identify several points along the
continuum.
Alex: We would just be providing context.
Henry: I'm a little nervous about that. It's likely to only get us
enemies.
Norm: I think I'd prefer to define what the pipelines are and let
application designers decide which ones to use.
Vojtech: But we have to give them fixed names, so that other specs can
point to them.
Norm: Absolutely
Henry: I'm thinking "minimal", "basic", and "validating"
Vojtech: I think they all have to be minimal.
Henry: minimal, the one we have now that's recommended, and one more maybe
that does validation.
Vojtech: So folks will add to them. We should have a really minimal one.
Norm: The one dividing line I see is, that there's no point defining
pipelines that require additional parameters/options.
... So no XSLT or RELAX NG validation.
Henry: I thought about xml-model and Richard raised xml-stylesheet. They
are, after all processing instructions and we're talking about processing
models.
... I guess the way to address that is with a few sentences that address
those PIs.
Proposal: Let's try to get this to FPWD. I propose we change the name
(editor's discretion) and have minimal and basic models.
Norm: Where minimal does 1, 2, and maybe 3. Basic is what we have now.
Alex: So we're not going to say anything about the xml-stylesheet PIs?
... Browsers do that, having it codified as a basic option would be good.
Henry: I think you may very well be right, but I'd like to think about it
a bit.
Alex: It would be great to have something to point to that we could say
browsers *should* do.
Henry: I see that, but let's get it out the door first.
... What should the short name be?
<MoZ> procmodel
<caribou> I thought it would avoid model in the shortname?
Norm: Let's see what title we get and then figure it out.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry+Norm to have the new draft ready for discussion
next week. [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
<ht> Carine, I agree wrt model
Any other business?
Alex: Let's get AC reps to vote!
Henry: I think we'll get to Rec w/o any difficulty even if we don't get a
lot more votes.
Norm: I think it just makes the press release, media fanfair easier if we
have more votes.
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to fix typo in the bibliography where XML5e is
referred to as XML4e [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Henry+Norm to have the new draft ready for discussion next
week. [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [25]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([26]CVS
log)
$Date: 2010/04/08 15:59:03 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-minutes#ActionSummary
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/08-agenda
12. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xproc/results
13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/25-minutes
14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/11/12-minutes.html#item04
16. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/06-minutes.html#item08
17. http://xerces.apache.org/xerces-j/features.html
18. http://apache.org/xml/features/nonvalidating/load-external-dtd
19. https://cwiki.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1113
20. http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-xml-proc
21. http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01
22. http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action02
23. http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01
24. http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action02
25. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
26. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 16:00:57 UTC