- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:26:35 -0400
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Sorry I had to miss the meeting. I'm not sure I appreciate all the considerations from reading the minutes, but if we are going to create anything even slightly beyond what we currently have in the document, I would really like it to talk about xml-stylesheet if feasible. paul > -----Original Message----- > From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml- > processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh > Sent: Thursday, 2010 April 08 11:00 > To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > Subject: XProc Minutes: 8 Apr 2010 > > 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 Friday, 9 April 2010 14:27:08 UTC