- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:30:41 -0600
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87fv9uq7gu.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
25 Feb 2015
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Henry, Loren, Norm, Jim, Murray, Alex
Regrets
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Accept this agenda?
2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
3. [7]Next meeting
4. [8]Review of open action items
5. [9]Report from XML Prague
6. [10]Face-to-face in June
7. [11]Default error ports, issue 136
8. [12]Generalized XML Validation step, issue 135
9. [13]Clarify the distinction between p:input declarations and
connecctions even better, issue 147
10. [14]Any other business?
* [15]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [16]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [17]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/03/04-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting
Proposed: 04 March 2014 does anyone have to give regrets?
Jim gives likely regrets for 4 Mar
Review of open action items
Norm: Any progress?
Norm: Nope.
Report from XML Prague
Norm: Pre-conference session, dinner, and conference session. Good
feedback all around.
Alex: It's nice to see people who are using XProc. There's definitely
random folks using it that we don't know about. That's kind of cool.
Jim: I had a lot of individual conversations and I think there are quite a
few people tracking the 2.0 effort. Anecdotally, I think people are
interested.
... Everyone was very positive about where 2.0 is going which made me
happy. The other thing that struck me is that there seems to be a general
emergence of pipelines as a problem solving strategy.
... Not everyone is using XProc, but they are interested in pipelines. I
don't think they were turned off by it but for one reason or another it
didn't fit.
Loren: I think XProc needs a GUI editor.
Jim: I'm sure this WG has talked about it a lot. Visualizing is one thing.
Programming with a visual editor is another thing.
... I have a pretty negative attitude personally about visual programming.
... When I was looking at XProcDoc, I was thinking it might be nice to
have a visual output from that.
... Overview diagrams are nice and they demo well.
Norm: My v2 engine includes an "output the graph" function.
Loren: PTC has a very good graphical workflow editor.
Face-to-face in June
Norm mumbles about dates.
Norm: I expect to be in London for XML London (5-7 June).
Jim: That might work better for me.
Henry: I might make it to XML London too, if we had a space, we could
conceivable have the meeting in London.
Jim: I have a place in London we can use.
Norm: I might be able to get MarkLogic to host us.
Henry: I'm transitioning through London on 4 June, so I could conceivable
stay.
Norm: So something like 8-10 June.
Henry: I'm happy to host in Edinburgh, but I don't insist on it.
Norm: I don't object to moving to Edinburgh.
Jim: It doesn't matter to me.
Proposed: XProc will meet f2f in Edinburgh, 10-12 June 2015.
Norm: Henry, will you investigate scheduling?
Henry: Doing it now...
... We can have the room we've met in before.
Default error ports, issue 136
Jim: I think there's some email about this. The idea is that every port
would have a default error port.
... The reason that I put this on there is that I didn't see any absolute
objections to it.
... The idea is that every step would have an error port that would emit
information.
Norm: For xsl:message, for schema validation errors, etc., yes?
Jim: Yes.
... I do think at the moment that we real problems debugging pipelines.
Norm: The only thing I recall is that we either need to define the error
format or we are describing a non-interoperable feature.
... But I have encountered pipelines where users wanted xsl:messages or
validation errors.
Jim: I haven't really thought it through, but I wanted to take the
temperature of the group.
Alex: I'm a fan of being able to trap errors and do intelligent things
with them. People writing enterprise software would really like it. But we
have to attempt to explore interoperability.
Henry: Works for me.
<scribe> ACTION: A-265-01 Jim to attempt to describe a minimally
interoperable error format for a standard error port. [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Generalized XML Validation step, issue 135
ht, I muted you. Sorry
Norm: This is a proposal for a step that uses the xml-model PI and does a
variety of different validation technologies
... There is variation in the options and such, but parameters (in V2)
would make that easier.
Jim: I wonder if what is proposed couldn't be done with just an NVDL step
orchestrating things.
<ht> I think it's worth trying, at least as far as CR, since we really
need to hear if it can be made to work
Norm: I don't know if NVDL has a "dispatch based on model PI" or not.
Jim: Probably doesn't.
... It's a question of what we build in and what comes as extensions.
<ht> I would go the other way, wrt what Norm just said: Add a step which
has arguments which mimic the model PI
<ht> So that people don't have to piss around faking up a model PI and
adding it
<jfuller> ex - Oxygen has <?oxygen NVDLSchema="xhtml-xforms.nvdl"?>
<ht> I'm not saying we shouldn't have the step that interprets the PI
Norm: I'm not a huge fan of the model PI but I'm not sure where that's
going.
Henry: All I meant was, it seems to me that a. having a step that
interprets the model PI and does validation seems sensible to me; not sure
if it can be made to work but htat's what CR is for.
... In addition, I would like to be able to say, given a document that I'd
like to validate that there isn't a specific step for. I'd have to add a
model PI and then pass it to the step.
<Loren> It looks like I am losing my conference room. I am going to have
to drop off the call.
Henry: It ought to be possible to have a builtin step to say that in the
absence of the model PI, there are a bunch of parameters that give you the
model PI that you wish you had put there.
<jfuller> guessing this is the use case on discussion -
[19]http://www.oxygenxml.com/doc/ug-author/index.html#concepts/oxygen-processing-instruction.html
Jim: Are we talking just xml-model.
<ht> I thought in the introduction you had said that the need for this was
driven in part by the fact that the space of validators larger than the
(likely) space of validation steps
<ht> OK, what you _just_ said about no PI is incompatible with what I
suggests
Norm: That might be true, but it's not exactly what I meant.
... No one is saying this is a bad idea, so we should consider trying to
spec it out.
<scribe> ACTION: A-256-02 Norm to attempt to spec out a generalized
p:xml-validation step. [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
Clarify the distinction between p:input declarations and connecctions even
better, issue 147
Norm: I thought the agenda needed something a little more open ended :-)
Norm waffles on a bit about the fact that we have p:input doing distinct
but subtly different jobs.
Jim: I think at this stage in the game, I don't want to change things. If
we solved this problem with a bit more words, that would be good enough.
Norm: I'm happy to file this as an editorial, we need to explain this
better problem, rather than adopting a technical language change.
No one suggests otherwise.
Any other business?
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: A-256-02 Norm to attempt to spec out a generalized
p:xml-validation step. [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: A-265-01 Jim to attempt to describe a minimally
interoperable error format for a standard error port. [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version 1.140 ([24]CVS
log)
$Date: 2015-02-25 16:29:13 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-minutes.html#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-minutes.html#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-minutes.html#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-minutes.html#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-minutes.html#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-minutes.html#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-minutes.html#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-minutes.html#item07
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-minutes.html#item08
13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-minutes.html#item09
14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-minutes.html#item10
15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-minutes.html#ActionSummary
16. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/02/25-agenda
17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/03/04-minutes
18. http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
19. http://www.oxygenxml.com/doc/ug-author/index.html#concepts/oxygen-processing-instruction.html
20. http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
21. http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-xproc-minutes.html#action02
22. http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-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 Wednesday, 25 February 2015 16:31:11 UTC