- From: Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:50:30 +0100
- To: James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>
- Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
> pls do not interpret my comments as 'not for v2' ... the WG > decides that as a whole, with input from the community. (…) > please do understand we will seriously discuss all > proposals. I’m sure you will. I really appreciate the WG being listening and inclusive, the XML Prague meetups (and popularity thereof) are the best proof of it ! Thx, Romain. On 18 févr. 2014, at 12:23, James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com> wrote: > On 18 February 2014 11:35, Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com> wrote: >> It seems we all agree that one big issue with XProc is it's learning curve, which is steep and rathe long tailed. The 5 minutes problem is *one* aspect of it, but as others pointed out it practically affects far more than 5 mins of an XProc developer's life. >> > > oh, I completely agree, but taking the approach that XProc big problem > is just a composition of smaller problems, we will also talk about 1st > day, 1st month and 1st year as well ... just breaking them up into > reasonable sized definitions as a first step. > >> To be honest I was expecting this understandable kind of reaction to my proposal ;) The proposed change is indeed significant (hence the "v4" joke). > > yes and pls do not interpret my comments as 'not for v2' ... the WG > decides that as a whole, with input from the community. > > at a minimum I think the WG should a capture all proposed requirements > and spend some time discussing them. > >> However, I would change first statement to "XProc v1 got the hairy things right **given the agreed-on constrained context**". >> >> In v2, there are two significant changes: (a) allowing any XDM in options -and ports?- and (b) allowing non-XML documents. I assume these changes would impact how you'd figure out the hairy things nowadays. >> > > there has been some significant time (years) thinking through the > implications of XDM everywhere and non xml documents flowing through > pipelines; their inclusion in requirements doc is a direct function of > WG higher confidence that we understand the problem domain they > address, would serve to dramatically increase usability and > applicability, and have a good grasp on exact techniques of how to > implement them. > > It maybe that with time and discussion, recent proposals will also get > included in requirements doc ... my reaction is based purely on the > fact that the WG has not spent the same amount of time rationalizing > inputs with options as outlined by your proposal; of course its a good > to have a minimum number of concepts and primitives and that impacts > usability ... and please do understand we will seriously discuss all > proposals. > >> Changes like this make some concepts peculiarities even more subtle, which might mean even more difficult to fully understand for a newcomer. > > Agreed, its like 'skating on thin ice, juggling chainsaws with people > shooting at you' to get this right. > > but I have confidence that we have a good opportunity to achieve > something quite special with XProc vnext. > > Keep the conversation rolling! > > J
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 11:51:10 UTC