XML Processing Model WG

05 Apr 2012


See also: IRC log


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


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

<scribe> ScribeNick: ht

MM: Alex M's draft from 4/06
... Some of the content is moved around abit
... Some stuff from the Wiki moved in to the introduction
... Added annotation to each use-case/req'd to identify their state
... So that we can do an audit

NW: Two comments
... 1) Now that we have a document, it should be the location of record for Vnext use cases and req'ts

JF: Should we in fact close off the wiki?

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

JF: I was worried about synchronisation

NW: 2) There are use cases which we have satisfied, and those should not show up
... Either via annotation and stylesheet or by just deleting

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

NW: Could go either way

AM: I'd like to at least clean up, or even get rid of, some of the early use cases, e.g. from me
... At very least don't make sense 'as is'

NW: We could be _really_ good and include XProc pipelines that show how we satisfied the old ones
... What I really care about is distinguishing old from new, so we see what we really have to work on

AM: I completely agree

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

AM: Is this all of the old ones?

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

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

NW: On telcon, or offline?

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

MM: I anticipated doing it offline
... I was hoping AM would make a pass

HST: Note that AM has lost audio

MM: I'll speak to him later

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

AM: I will have a look when I can, and work with MM
... What I'm missing is what we've agreed about the primary goals of Vnext

<scribe> ACTION: NW 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]

AM: Do we want to divy up the use cases


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

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

NW: In some cases, but there is no metadata which records that fact

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

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

JF: Test could be informal

AM: I'd think the new req'ts docs is the right place for informal/prose test cases
... Indeed they are important, and need to be in the doc

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

AM: What happened with our charter renewal?

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

AM: Hiccup?

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

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: NW 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 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/04/10 18:04:44 $