<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<essay xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:gal="http://norman.walsh.name/rdf/gallery#">
<info>
    
    
    
    
    
    
<title>XML Activity Rechartered</title><biblioid class="uri">http://norman.walsh.name/2004/06/20/xmlactivity</biblioid>
<volumenum>7</volumenum>
<issuenum>101</issuenum>
<pubdate>2004-06-20T16:30:00-04:00</pubdate>
<date>$Date: 2005-09-11 10:27:02 -0400 (Sun, 11 Sep 2005) $</date>
<author>
      <personname>
<firstname>Norman</firstname>
	<surname>Walsh</surname>
</personname>
    </author>
<copyright>
      <year>2004</year>
      <holder>Norman Walsh</holder>
    </copyright>
<abstract>
<para>The XML Activity has been rechartered. This is a good thing, but it’s
a shame about the processing model.</para>
</abstract>
<dc:subject rdf:resource="http://norman.walsh.name/knows/taxonomy#XML"/>
</info>

<para xml:id="id1">The
<link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/XML/Activity">XML Activity</link> has been
rechartered. I think that’s a good thing because I participate in several working
groups under that activity: I’m a member of the
<link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/XML/Core/">XML Core Working Group</link> (WG) and
the <link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/">XSL WG</link> and I participate
in the XML Coordination Group by virtue of being co-chair of XML
Core. In the past, I’ve also been a member of the XML Schema WG and the now
defunct XML Linking WG.</para>

<para xml:id="id2">So it’s a good thing, but my happiness about the rechartering
is tempered by bitter
disappointment. If you examine the 
<link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/2003/09/xmlap/xml-core-wg-charter.html">new
charter</link>
of the XML Core WG and compare it to the
<link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/2001/12/xmlbp/xml-core-wg-charter.html">previous
charter</link>
you will notice that all mention of the “XML Processing Model” has been expunged.</para>

<para xml:id="id3">Now this is not a conspiracy theory piece. I understand how and why it
happened. There were good, or at least plausible, reasons both procedural and
technical for the decision:</para>

<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para xml:id="id4">Procedurally, the previous charter is vague. While it lists the
processing model as in the “Scope” of XML Core, it does not list it among the
“Deliverables” of the WG (not that the list of deliverables
is comprehensive). It is possible to interpret the previous charter
as not actually putting the task of developing a processing model specification
in the domain of the XML Core WG.</para>
<para xml:id="id5">I don’t read it that way, but intelligent, well-meaning colleagues do
even though the WG <emphasis>did</emphasis> produce a
<link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-proc-model-req-20040405/">requirements
document</link> for the processing model. Go figure.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para xml:id="id6">Technically, <emphasis>if it was</emphasis> ever XML Core’s task, it’s been a task
for several years and the group has precious little to show for it. We just
barely got the requirements document out before the new charter was approved.
</para>
<para xml:id="id7">It’s also possible to argue that from a technical point of view the
processing model task has never been very clearly specified. It means different
things to different people.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para xml:id="id8">Also procedurally, amplified perhaps by our lack of
clarity about the task, some folks in XML Core didn’t want to see the work
done there. Maybe that’s more political than procedural, I don’t know.
Doesn’t matter, anyway.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para xml:id="id9">Finally, the public doesn’t seem to be clamoring for
the processing model.
<link xlink:href="pipelines">I think it’s important</link>, and I’m not alone, but it isn’t
something for which people are waiting anxiously. Maybe if we renamed
it WS-Pipelines
(<link xlink:href="http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/ha-ha-only-serious.html">Ha, ha,
only serious</link>).</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>

<para xml:id="id10">Whether you find these arguments convincing or not is irrelevant;
the decision has been made. My favorite
<link xlink:href="http://www.babylon5.com/">B5</link> quote applies: “The
avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.”
Actually, that’s not fair. The
<link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/organization.html#AC">AC</link>
did vote, they’re not pebbles, they’re the representative body of the W3C,
and I tried to make sure that they knew about the change.</para>

<para xml:id="id11">So all that remains is my disappointment. Why am I disappointed?
Well, partly because worked hard on
<link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xml-pipeline-20020228/">a spec</link>
for the
<link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/XML/2001/07/XMLPM.html">XML Processing Model
Workshop</link> and argued that the work should be taken up by
XML Core in the first place. And partly
because <emphasis>I want the damn thing</emphasis>. But mostly
because now that it has been removed from XML Core, I see only
four possibilities:</para>

<orderedlist>
<listitem>
<para xml:id="id12">The task will move to another Working Group. This seems
unlikely: of all the groups currently chartered in the XML Activity,
XML Core is the only place that seems appropriate.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para xml:id="id13">A new WG will be spun up to do it. This is really the only logical
course left, but
doing so would require the membership to agree that it was worth doing, would require
additional staff resources, would require participants to sign up for yet-another-telcon,
and is generally about as light-weight as an
<link xlink:href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmium">osmium</link> brick.
It may be doable, but it seems unlikely.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para xml:id="id14">Some other standards organization will spin up a working group to do it.
Ditto what I just said.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para xml:id="id15">The processing model work will slip beneath the waves and vanish, at
least for now. I think this is the most likely outcome, but I’d be happy
to be proved wrong.</para>
</listitem>
</orderedlist>

<section xml:id="anger">
<title>Coding in Anger</title>
<para xml:id="id16">So I fought, perhaps not hard enough, to keep the
processing model work in the XML Core WG and I lost. C’est la vie. In
the weeks that have elapsed, frustration has turned to disappointment
until finally in a fit of pique I decided: **** ’em! If I’m not going
to be working on a spec, I can always <link xlink:href="sxpipe">write
code</link>.
</para>
</section>

</essay>

