Re: The first five minutes ... a thought experiment (long)

> 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