See also: IRC log
Date: 15 Apr 2010
<scribe> Meeting: 171
<scribe> Scribe: Norm
<scribe> ScribeNick: Norm
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-agenda
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/08-minutes
Accepted.
No regrets heard.
Norm: Voting closes today. We've got 12 votes in favor, 1 with a change (the bug we want to fix) and 2 explicit abstentions.
Henry: I hope I did what was needed.
Norm: Yes. Looks fine to me, thanks Henry
-> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xproc/results
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
Henry: I basically did what we
said. We agreed to two changes.
... Make a new title, and this really is processor profiles, so
I chose "XML processor profiles". The XML spec calls what we're
talking about "an XML processor".
... I'm not wedded to the name.
... The other thing I did was add another profile.
... I tried to add another profile, to handle xml-stylesheet,
but discovered that it was quite difficult.
... What the stylesheet PI does is lay off responsibility to
other specs.
... I've reduced my expectations to just trying to get the
correct infoset (or data model of choice). Once youv'e applied
a stylesheet, or a GRDDL, it's not really "this" document
anymore.
... My realizaation is that what I wanted to do with this spec
was focus on getting the correct infoset. The fact that I
couldn't do the stylesheet story in this spec didn't bother me
as much as I thought it would.
... I also had the minor insight that if I was writing the
media type registration for, say text/css, I might say
something about the processing model profile but that would be
in my spec, not in this spec.
Murray: Are there two or three profiles?
Henry: Two, and a discussion of what might be in some other profile.
Murray: I'm sort of sympathetic to the ideas that Henry expressed. I wonder if Paul agrees?
Paul: We can write a pipeline that tells you what to do with an XML document and a stylesheet PI, right?
Norm: Well, for some PIs. For an XSL stylesheet, yes, but for CSS, it's less clear.
Murray: You can load the pipeline into XSL or set a flag to indicate that it was amenable for XSL processing.
Norm: Yes, you could set a variable or option.
Murray: I thought one of the
things you could do with the processing model is determine what
kind of processing it's eligable for.
... So it might say that XSL was possible, or GRDDL, or other
things.
<ht> Murray is enumerating some things of the sort which I called in a TAG musing "elaboration signals" -- things which signal the possibility of further processing
<ht> ... the use of certain elements from the XML Encryption namespace is another one
Murray: Would it be useful to write that pipeline?
Henry: Two years ago, when I was
trying to get my head around this with my TAG hat on, I
produced the elaborated infoset document.
... There's a notion in that which I think I called
"elaboration signals". Murray's just reconstructed that
idea.
... You've started to list the things that might be in the
document that are signals for future processing. For example,
encryption.
... Yes, I think that's a useful idea. I've never been able to
get anywhere beyond the observation that there are these
things.
... It's always seemed to be the case that it's human beings
that make the decision about what to do.
Murray: From a QA perspective:
the delta between what could be done and what was actually done
could be interesting and useful.
... What Henry said earlier about the fact that what XSLT
creates for styling is another document, with GRDDL, I guess
the same thing is true.
... But in the GRDDL case, it's asserted to be a faithful
rendition of the information in this document.
... Another thing about the infoset with respect to GRDDL is
that GRDDL decided that you might not have expanded entities,
or exposed fixed attributes, etc.
Henry: My inclination is not to
bless that. Just because they did it doesn't mean we should
make it easy.
... They're going below what we (I) think is the minimum.
Murray: We could give it a name and then explain why you shouldn't use it.
Norm: My concern is that you can't process documents that contain unexpanded entity references. Or documents that aren't namespace well-formed for that matter.
Some further discussion about what the minimum profile means: it expands all entities, fills in attribute default values, etc.
Henry: On a completely different
topic, what should our short name be?
... I'm tempted by xprof, but I think the linguistic similarity
to 'xproc' is too confusing.
Paul: I suggested 'xml-proc-prof'. An abbreviation of processing profile.
Norm: How about 'xmlprofiles'
<alexmilowski> xmlpp
Murray: It's not an XML profile,
it's an XML processing profile.
... And why profile not model?
Henry: My reasoning was that when
a spec gives you a set of choices, which is what the XML spec
does, then a particular set of values for those choices is what
I undersatnd is meant by the word "profile"
... Model is just one of those generic words that's lost all
meaning. What would it mean not to be a model? It's just a noun
to put after processor.
Norm: Assuming we clean up the editorial issues, would anyone object to publishing this as the first public working draft?
Alex: I really wonder about the xml stylesheet PI issue. I would really like to say something about what browsers do, but maybe that's more than we can achieve.
Murray: Browsers don't do any of this, do they?
Alex: Web browsers do more-or-less apply the XML stylesheet PI.
Some wandering discussion of user agents, media types, stylesheets, validation, etc.
Alex: If we had a processor profile for "apply style" then what the user agent does could be described as "select a stylesheet, through some implementation defined means" then do the "apply stylesheet" profile.
Henry: What I'd like to do is take this document and see if we can get other specs to reference it: HTML5, xxx+XML media types, etc.
Alex: I don't disagree, I just don't know if section 4 needs some tweaking.
Norm: I'd like it out sooner and
smaller so we can see what way the community goes with
it.
... The community might love it or hate it and I can't predict
which.
Murray: I'd like to publish this
soon. I'd like to see more detail in it about what we do with
the infoset at each step in the process.
... Maybe with a catalog of infoset changes. And I wonder if as
part of this process we wouldn't discover new info items to add
to the infoset.
... Perhaps we discover that we set particular flags for every
pipeline, shouldn't they just be in the infoset.
Norm: Does anyone object to making more-or-less this document our FPWD?
Murray: How about adding a paragraph or two about XML functions and how this document doesn't do that.
No objections heard.
Norm: Now we need a short name.
Some proposals: xml-proc-prof, xppf,
xml-processor-profiles
xmlprocessorpofiles
xml-processing-best-practices
<alexmilowski> xml-proc-profiles
xpm
Murray/Henry wrangle a little bit over the title again "profile" vs "model"
Henry: My focus here is what are
the invariants that you can count on in the information you
get, not how you get it.
... I don't see this as a collection of pipelines
<alexmilowski> "Pipelines for XML Processors" :)
xproc-profiles
profiles-of-xml
<Vojtech> xmlp?
<PGrosso> I'm liking xml-proc-profiles
<ht> xml-proc-profiles
Proposal: We use the short name xml-proc-profiles
<Vojtech> the short name most likely will contain 'xml' and 'processing', the question is about 'model' and 'profile' - so I wouldn't include it
Accepted.
Henry: I say we get this out by Monday and if no one objects before Wednesday then we go forward.
Norm: Anyone object to that?
None heard.
<alexmilowski> Gotta run. Bye.
None heard.
Adjourned
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: Norm Inferring ScribeNick: Norm Found ScribeNick: Norm Present: Paul Alex Henry Norm Murray Vojtech Regrets: Mohamed Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/04/15-agenda Found Date: 15 Apr 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-xproc-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]