XML Processing Model WG

05 Apr 2012


See also: IRC log


Norm, Murray, Jim, Henry, Alex
Vojtech, Cornelia


Date: 5 April 2012

<scribe> Meeting: 211

<scribe> Scribe: Norm

<scribe> ScribeNick: Norm

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Apr/att-0005/WD-xproc-requirements-20120401.html

Accept this agenda?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-agenda


Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes


Next meeting: telcon, 12 April 2012

No regrets heard

Review of action items

<scribe> No progress reported. All actions continued. Except Murray's :-)

Use cases and requirements for V.next

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Apr/att-0005/WD-xproc-requirements-20120401.html

<ht> MM: Alex M's draft from 4/06

<ht> ... Some of the content is moved around abit

<ht> ... Some stuff from the Wiki moved in to the introduction

<ht> ... Added annotation to each use-case/req'd to identify their state

<ht> ... So that we can do an audit

<ht> NW: Two comments

<ht> ... 1) Now that we have a document, it should be the location of record for Vnext use cases and req'ts

<ht> JF: Should we in fact close off the wiki?

<ht> NW: Not necessary, although put something at the top pointing to this doc't ASAP

<ht> JF: I was worried about synchronisation

<ht> NW: 2) There are use cases which we have satisfied, and those should not show up

<ht> ... Either via annotation and stylesheet or by just deleting

<ht> AM: Do we see this as a Vnext-only requirements doc't, or an update to the old one?

<ht> NW: Could go either way

<ht> AM: I'd like to at least clean up, or even get rid of, some of the early use cases, e.g. from me

<ht> ... At very least don't make sense 'as is'

<ht> NW: We could be _really_ good and include XProc pipelines that show how we satisfied the old ones

<ht> NW: What I really care about is distinguishing old from new, so we see what we really have to work on

<ht> AM: I completely agree

<ht> MM: Yes, the old stuff is there so we can do the audit

<ht> AM: Is this all of the old ones?

<ht> MM: Yes -- I started from the old source to do this, didn't remove anything

<ht> JF: I think doing a case-by-case audit is a good idea

<ht> NM: On telcon, or offline?

<alexmilowski> Hmm… having trouble with T-mobile … no signal at all. :(

<ht> MM: I anticipated doing it offline

<ht> MM: I was hoping AM would make a pass

<ht> HST: Note that AM has lost audio

<ht> MM: I'll speak to him later

<ht> NM: Right, so would everyone please have a go at reviewing the use cases, and if appropriate drafting an XProc snippets

<ht> AM: I will have a look when I can, and work with MM

<ht> AM: What I'm missing is what we've agreed about the primary goals of Vnext

<ht> ACTION: NM to find the discussion of goals in the minutes and distill some prose for use in the Reqts Doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

<ht> AM: Do we want to divy up the use cases

<ht> ?

<ht> NM: My thought was that we would give people a week to read this, and then decide on tactics

<ht> AM: We did go over the req't doc for V1 -- did the outcome of that review turn up in the test suite?

<ht> NM: In some cases, but there is no metadata which records that fact

<ht> JF: Add tests to the test suite as we articulate new req'ts?

<ht> AM: Could be difficult, e.g. for DB access

<ht> JF: Test could be informal

<ht> AM: I'd think the new req'ts docs is the right place for informal/prose test cases

<ht> ... Indeed they are important, and need to be in the doc

<ht> NM: So yes, that argues for leaving the old ones in, as long as their state (solved, won't fix, etc.) is easily evident

<ht> AM: What happened with our charter renewal?

<ht> NM: LQ has made a draft, I've reviewed it, it started up the chain, we will get it again

<ht> AM: Hiccup?

<ht> NM: Yes, but resolved -- we will be rechartered to do a VNext if the req'ts review says we need one

<alexmilowski> If only the w3c didn't use CVS

<alexmilowski> :)

rrsagent draft-minutes

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: NM to find the discussion of goals in the minutes and distill some prose for use in the Reqts Doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/04/05 14:29:38 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/anythihg/anything/
Found Scribe: Norm
Inferring ScribeNick: Norm
Found ScribeNick: Norm
Present: Norm Murray Jim Henry Alex
Regrets: Vojtech Cornelia
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/04/05-agenda
Found Date: 05 Apr 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-xproc-minutes.html
People with action items: nm

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]