- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:06:16 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2wr5no413.fsf_-_@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
05 Apr 2012
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Murray, Jim, Henry, Alex
Regrets
Vojtech, Cornelia
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, 12 April 2012
4. [8]Review of action items
5. [9]Use cases and requirements for V.next
* [10]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [11]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting: telcon, 12 April 2012
No regrets heard
Review of action items
<scribe> No progress reported. All actions continued. Except Murray's :-)
Use cases and requirements for V.next
->
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Apr/att-0005/WD-xproc-requirements-20120401.html
<scribe> ScribeNick: ht
MM: Alex M's draft from 4/06
... Some of the content is moved around abit
... Some stuff from the Wiki moved in to the introduction
... Added annotation to each use-case/req'd to identify their state
... So that we can do an audit
NW: Two comments
... 1) Now that we have a document, it should be the location of record
for Vnext use cases and req'ts
JF: Should we in fact close off the wiki?
NW: Not necessary, although put something at the top pointing to this
doc't ASAP
JF: I was worried about synchronisation
NW: 2) There are use cases which we have satisfied, and those should not
show up
... Either via annotation and stylesheet or by just deleting
AM: Do we see this as a Vnext-only requirements doc't, or an update to the
old one?
NW: Could go either way
AM: I'd like to at least clean up, or even get rid of, some of the early
use cases, e.g. from me
... At very least don't make sense 'as is'
NW: We could be _really_ good and include XProc pipelines that show how we
satisfied the old ones
... What I really care about is distinguishing old from new, so we see
what we really have to work on
AM: I completely agree
MM: Yes, the old stuff is there so we can do the audit
AM: Is this all of the old ones?
MM: Yes -- I started from the old source to do this, didn't remove
anything
JF: I think doing a case-by-case audit is a good idea
NW: On telcon, or offline?
<alexmilowski> Hmmâ*¦ having trouble with T-mobile â*¦ no signal at
all. :(
MM: I anticipated doing it offline
... I was hoping AM would make a pass
HST: Note that AM has lost audio
MM: I'll speak to him later
NW: Right, so would everyone please have a go at reviewing the use cases,
and if appropriate drafting an XProc snippets
AM: I will have a look when I can, and work with MM
... What I'm missing is what we've agreed about the primary goals of Vnext
<scribe> ACTION: NW to find the discussion of goals in the minutes and
distill some prose for use in the Reqts Doc [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
AM: Do we want to divy up the use cases
?
NW: My thought was that we would give people a week to read this, and then
decide on tactics
AM: We did go over the req't doc for V1 -- did the outcome of that review
turn up in the test suite?
NW: In some cases, but there is no metadata which records that fact
JF: Add tests to the test suite as we articulate new req'ts?
AM: Could be difficult, e.g. for DB access
JF: Test could be informal
AM: I'd think the new req'ts docs is the right place for informal/prose
test cases
... Indeed they are important, and need to be in the doc
NW: So yes, that argues for leaving the old ones in, as long as their
state (solved, won't fix, etc.) is easily evident
AM: What happened with our charter renewal?
NW: LQ has made a draft, I've reviewed it, it started up the chain, we
will get it again
AM: Hiccup?
NW: Yes, but resolved -- we will be rechartered to do a VNext if the
req'ts review says we need one
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: NW to find the discussion of goals in the minutes and
distill some prose for use in the Reqts Doc [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [16]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([17]CVS
log)
$Date: 2012/04/10 18:04:44 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-minutes#ActionSummary
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-agenda
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes
13. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Apr/att-0005/WD-xproc-requirements-20120401.html
14. http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01
15. http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01
16. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
17. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:06:48 UTC