Editor needs procedural feedback

I think that this is aimed mostly at Norm and Henry. I have Cc's Liam in case he has time and inclination to help me.

As you know, I have not been active in W3C work for a long while. The HTML document that I sent to the mail list on Wednesday night demonstrates that I am unfamiliar with procedures.

A have a number of questions which I am hoping one of you can help me with so that I won't have to trouble you in the future.

1) Having started with Alex 20060411 WD, should I be using the same IDs for everything, or are we forking a new document? That is, should this document continue to be known as http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc-requirements/ or should it become http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc-Vnext--requirements/ or some such? I can see logic behind either approach, and I guess I would prefer that we continue the same URI, but I am asking because I just don't know what proper procedure is.

More generally, I guess I am asking someone to help me figure out the WD meta-data content.

2) How do I get set up to use content management system? I think that I heard that I need a key of some kind, and I may need to use SSH. Could somebody fill me in or point me at somebody who can? Please note that I alternate between my laptop and a Mac Mini, and would like to be able to work from either, if that matters.


Murray Maloney
murray@muzmo.com
muzmo@me.com



On 2012-03-21, at 6:55 AM, Norman Walsh wrote:

> See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes
> 
> [1]W3C
> 
>                                   - DRAFT -
> 
>                            XML Processing Model WG
> 
> Meeting 210, 15 Mar 2012
> 
>   [2]Agenda
> 
>   See also: [3]IRC log
> 
> Attendees
> 
>   Present
>           Norm, Alex, Murray, Henry
> 
>   Regrets
>           Cornelia, Mohamed
> 
>   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, 22 March 2012
>         4. [8]Review of open action items
>         5. [9]Review of last call processor profile comments.
>         6. [10]Michael also makes a bunch of editorial suggestions.
>         7. [11]Progress on requirements/use cases
>         8. [12]Any other business?
> 
>     * [13]Summary of Action Items
> 
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>  Accept this agenda?
> 
>   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-agenda
> 
>   Accepted.
> 
>  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
> 
>   -> [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes
> 
>   Accepted.
> 
>  Next meeting: telcon, 22 March 2012
> 
>   No regrets heard.
> 
>  Review of open action items
> 
>   A-206-02: continued
> 
>   A-207-01: completed. there's only one comment
> 
>   A-207-02: continued
> 
>   A-209-01: continued, ETA 29 Mar
> 
>  Review of last call processor profile comments.
> 
>   Norm: We only have one, from cmsmcq.
> 
>   ->
>   [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2012Jan/0000.html
> 
>   Norm: Two substantive issues, standalone and validation.
>   ... What about standalone?
>   ... What are the cases?
>   ... No external decls, it's irrelevant
>   ... External decls, standalone=no, (the default) that's a validity
>   constraint
>   ... External decls, standalone=yes, then what we do is ok.
> 
>   Henry: Perhaps we should ask Michael if he made the same mistake that I
>   did, that standalone=no does not require a processor to read the external
>   declarations.
>   ... We should also see if he made it more clear in his previous comments
>   what he wanted.
> 
>   ->
>   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2011Apr/0003.html
> 
>   Norm: Looking at Michael's comments, I think he has misinterpreted the
>   spec.
> 
>   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to respond to Micheal and see if we can come to the
>   same place. [recorded in
>   [18]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
> 
>   Alex: Reading Micheal's original comment, I think there are two
>   interpretations. One is that these are things he thinks the XML Rec says
>   and one is that these are the things he would like *us* to say.
> 
>   Norm: You think perhaps Micheal is saying that *we* should enforce this
>   behavior wrt to standalone.
>   ... The second issue he raises is validation, which he at least agrees we
>   improved.
>   ... I think Micheal makes a good point that it would be easy to read this
>   spec and missunderstand that validation is forbidden.
>   ... I wonder if we could improve things by mentioning validation in 2.3
>   and 2.4
>   ... We could say in point 1 "non-validating or non-valdating"
> 
>   Henry: We could add a note that says "this requirement is satisfied by any
>   conformant validating parser"
> 
>   Murray returns the discussion to standalone with the observation that the
>   XML spec says there's an algorithm for turning standalone=no into
>   standalone=yes
> 
>   Some discussion of how "algorithm" is to be interpreted; does a validating
>   parser suffice?
> 
>   Norm: I'm not sure a validating parser covers the case of an invalid but
>   well-formed document with standalone=no
> 
>   Henry: I think my problem with the standalone declaration is that it's a
>   significant increase in complexity for an area that's very little used.
> 
>   Alex: What would standalone help us with?
> 
>   Norm: I'm not sure what Micheal meant, so I'm not sure how to answer that.
>   ... In the basic and id profiles, standalone is irrelevant becase we don't
>   read the external decls and it's a validity constraint and a validating
>   parser can't be used to do the first two profiles.
> 
>   Murray: I think what Michael is saying is what I've been saying,
>   validatity and standalone=no are things that would change the result of
>   processing.
>   ... If you have a document that requires validation and/or requires
>   fetching external subsets is going to result in a different document.
>   ... And the truth value of that document changes depending on whether you
>   validate or not.
> 
>   Henry: That's why we put in the stuff about invariants, so we could be
>   very clear that what you get may change.
>   ... Maybe we should make it clear that a validating processor cannot
>   implement 2.1 and 2.2 if the documents have an external subset.
>   ... Validating parsers *must* read the external subset.
> 
>   <scribe> ACTION: Henry to draft notes for 2.1 and 2.2 saying that a
>   validating parser cannot be used if there's an external subset and to say
>   in 2.3 and 2.4 explicitly that validation could be performed [recorded in
>   [19]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
> 
>   Norm: Murray, what do you want to say about a standalone=no document with
>   external decls if it's parsed by a basic or id processor.
> 
>   Murray: I think I just want to say that you may have lost information.
> 
>   Norm: I have no objection to adding a note to that effect, I just don't
>   think changing behavior is within our remit.
> 
>   Murray: I still think there should be a profile that takes in an XML
>   document which was composed with a notion that it would be validated.
>   ... so it's truth value would be determined by that profile.
>   ... But the WG doesn't agree with that position, that's fine. I think that
>   Michael feels the same way. I think the amelioriting text will help.
> 
>   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to draft notes for 2.1 and 2.2 to describe the
>   consequences of information loss for a standalone=no document when it has
>   external declarations. [recorded in
>   [20]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
> 
>   Murray: What would be most satisfying to me is that if we had a profile
>   that covered validation and then if we deprecated it in V.next.
> 
>   Henry: I think we're doing better than that. The external declarations
>   profile gives you the infoset you want, whether or not its validated, and
>   then you can decide independently to validate it.
> 
>   Norm: Perhaps a note to that effect in 2.3 would be a good idea.
> 
>   Henry: In section 3, for class Extended perhaps we should say explicitly
>   that may be absent under 2.1 and 2.2.
> 
>  Michael also makes a bunch of editorial suggestions.
> 
>   <scribe> ACTION: Norm or Henry to implement Micheal's editorial changes,
>   raising any issues we see, if any. [recorded in
>   [21]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action04]
> 
>  Progress on requirements/use cases
> 
>   Norm: Murray are you interested in working on the use cases and
>   requirements.
> 
>   Murray: Yes. I was talking to Alex, and I think we might work on it
>   together.
> 
>   Alex: Yep.
> 
>   Norm: Excellent.
>   ... Proposed ETA?
>   ... How about 12 April?
> 
>  Any other business?
> 
>   None heard.
> 
>   Adjourned.
> 
> Summary of Action Items
> 
>   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to draft notes for 2.1 and 2.2 saying that a
>   validating parser cannot be used if there's an external subset and to say
>   in 2.3 and 2.4 explicitly that validation could be performed [recorded in
>   [22]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
>   [NEW] ACTION: Norm or Henry to implement Micheal's editorial changes,
>   raising any issues we see, if any. [recorded in
>   [23]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action04]
>   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to draft notes for 2.1 and 2.2 to describe the
>   consequences of information loss for a standalone=no document when it has
>   external declarations. [recorded in
>   [24]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
>   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to respond to Micheal and see if we can come to the
>   same place. [recorded in
>   [25]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
> 
>   [End of minutes]
> 
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [26]scribe.perl version 1.136 ([27]CVS
>    log)
>    $Date: 2012/03/21 13:53:39 $
> 
> References
> 
>   1. http://www.w3.org/
>   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-agenda
>   3. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-irc
>   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#agenda
>   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item01
>   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item02
>   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item03
>   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item04
>   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item05
>  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item06
>  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item07
>  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#item08
>  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes#ActionSummary
>  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-agenda
>  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/02/23-minutes
>  16. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2012Jan/0000.html
>  17. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2011Apr/0003.html
>  18. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01
>  19. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action02
>  20. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action03
>  21. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action04
>  22. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action02
>  23. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action04
>  24. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action03
>  25. http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action01
>  26. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>  27. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 20:03:41 UTC