- From: Loren Cahlander <loren.cahlander@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:15:09 -0500
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: "public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
I do have to send regrets for next week. I have a meeting scheduled at the same time. My proxy to the chair. Loren Sent from my iPad > On Feb 25, 2015, at 11:31 AM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > > Resending so that it's easier to find in the archives. I accidentally > sent this with the wrong subject the first time. > > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes: >> 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/ > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh > Lead Engineer > MarkLogic Corporation > Phone: +1 512 761 6676 > www.marklogic.com
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2015 18:15:40 UTC