- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:07:12 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2hb6fk6zj.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XMLroc/2011/07/21-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 197, 21 Jul 2011
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Jim, Henry, Vojtech, Murray
Regrets
Paul, Mohamed
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Accept this agenda?
2. [6]Accept minutes from the preious meeting?
3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 11 August 2011?
4. [8]TPAC
5. [9]Progress on XML processor profiles
6. [10]XProc errata E10
7. [11]Validation in the processor profiles note
8. [12]Any other business?
* [13]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-agenda
Norm notes that he added XProc errata E10
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the preious meeting?
-> [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/14-minutes
Accepted
Next meeting: telcon, 11 August 2011?
Henry gives regrets for 11 August and the three following weeks
Jim gives regrets for 11 and 18 August
Norm: I think we'll meet on 11 August anyway and survey the scene. We can
agree to start again in September if August looks like a wash.
TPAC
-> [16]http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/
-> [17]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2011/
Progress on XML processor profiles
Norm: Thank you Henry for the new draft.
<ht> [18]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to update the comments list and propose an action
plan to make progress [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2011/07/21-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Norm: That will require considering the proposals we've discussed for more
radical change in the direction of browser compatibility as well as
detailed comments from cmsmcq and others.
Henry: I think it would be useful to discuss what we might do wrt to the
browser question.
Norm: I think we need the bottom level of conformance to be what browsers
do.
Henry: I don't have a problem with that, and then lobbying to get HTML5 to
reference it. I think the chances they will are small.
... I don't think we should jettison several of the other profiles to make
space for that one.
... The bottom line is that there are an enormous number of XML
applications out there that have nothing to do with HTML and do stand to
benefit from making use of this spec. And they're more likely to do so.
Norm: I think there was also concern about the word "recommended" in a
profile name
Henry: I'm happy to change that, even right now.
Norm: I think another axis of concern was implementing XInclude in the
browser. XInclude is only in a profile that reads the external subset and
browsers won't.
<Jim> as an aside ...
[20]http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2007/03/28/xinclude-processing-in-xslt-with-xipr.html
now works with SAXON CE
<Jim> spoke to Erik a few weeks ago in Zurich
Henry observes that reading the external subset w/o validation is useful
for attribute types.
Norm counters that attribute types are mostly useful for ID attributes and
we have xml:id so why bother.
Norm reads through the profiles suggesting that on reflection the seem
pretty good, with the possible wrinkle that you can't do XInclude w/o
reading the external subset.
Norm: Saying you do the basic profile with XInclude doesn't seem
conceptually that different from saying that you do the modest profile and
require validation.
Henry: Exactly.
Norm: So maybe we like where we are and we just need to deal with the
detailed technical comments.
Henry: Yes, but we probably should rename the "recommended" profile.
Norm: I think "full" is the first adjective that follows "minimal",
"basic", and "modest" in my mind.
Jim: Full sounds good to me.
Vojtech: They both sound like something that's good enough. If you want
something "more fuller" how would you name it?
Norm: Is there more?
Vojtech: One of cmsmcq's comments is that this division into four profiles
was arbitrary. One might have a different view. It's more about deciding
what goes into each box.
... From that perspective, full might be bad because it might not be full
for someone else.
Henry: We could add some prose in a suitable place that describes why we
named these particular profiles.
... but you could define your own based on this pattern.
Vojtech: I think right now the feeling cmsmcq had was that it seems a bit
arbitrary.
Henry: Well, the answer is, I think, that thinking historically about how
they came about...
... There is an inventory of low-level XML specs. And although they are in
some sense independent, they are partially ordered.
... You can't really imagine requiring XInclude without xml:base.
... There are two sources of indeterminacy in what you get from a
processor. One is how it interprets the flexibility that the XML spec
itself provides and the other is which of the low-level specs it supports.
The tableaux satisfies the former and the profiles we pick sort of walk up
the partial order.
... We decided that there was no point picking the one off the bottom (no
namespace support, no xml:base support), and after that I think it falls
out pretty straightfowardly.
Vojtech: I don't disagree, I just think the commenter wanted more of that
explanation in the specification.
Henry: Would what I proposed help, do you think?
Vojtech: I think it might. We already have some of this in the background
section.
Jim: We could also just enumerate them, level 1, level 2, etc.
Vojtech: Not just naming the profiles, but the stuff that goes in them.
Henry: Yes, and I think we can consider this when we look at that comment
in more detail.
Norm: So I think my takeaway is we're willing to consider or even anxious
to rename the top-level profile if it'll help, but otherwise we should
proceed with addressing the technical comments that we got.
XProc errata E10
->[21]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-proposed-errata
Norm: This addresses the issue Vojtech raised about the discussion of
"error" as an "output port".
... Anyone think I got it wrong?
Jim: Are these errata tied back to email messages on the list?
Norm: No, but they probably should be. At least to the minutes where the
decision was made. I'll try to be better about that.
<ht> HST is happy with E10
Jim: What about ancillary specs?
Norm: I have an errata document for the p:template spec. But it's a note
so we can just republish it if we want.
Jim: And do you think notes are a good way forward?
Norm: Yes.
Henry: Me too.
Jim: Should we be considering anything else for notes?
Norm: I'm happy to, if anyone has suggestions.
Jim; I think we should be active in publishing those kinds of notes.
Validation in the processor profiles note
Murray: I didn't think the antecedent of "this" was clear.
Henry: Ok.
Murray: Some of the specs refer to external declarations, what about the
internal ones?
Henry: The "required of conformant non-validation parsers" clause ties
that one down. The spec doesn't give you any leeway there.
Some discussion about the orthogonal nature of validation. You can
complement any of these profiles with a statement that validation is
required.
Murray: Shouldn't we say why?
Any other business?
None heard.
Henry: Give my regards to all and sundry in Montreal.
Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to update the comments list and propose an action plan
to make progress [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2011/07/21-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version 1.136 ([24]CVS
log)
$Date: 2011/07/21 15:06:30 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2011/07/21-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item07
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#item08
13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-minutes#ActionSummary
14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/21-agenda
15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/07/14-minutes
16. http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/
17. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2011/
18. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
19. http://www.w3.org/2011/07/21-xproc-minutes.html#action01
20. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2007/03/28/xinclude-processing-in-xslt-with-xipr.html
21. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-proposed-errata
22. http://www.w3.org/2011/07/21-xproc-minutes.html#action01
23. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
24. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 15:07:51 UTC