<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<essay xml:lang="en" version="5.0" 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#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/">
<info>
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
<title>XProc: An XML Pipeline Language</title><biblioid class="uri">http://norman.walsh.name/2006/11/17/xprocwd</biblioid>
<volumenum>9</volumenum>
<issuenum>115</issuenum>
<pubdate>2006-11-17T12:44:36-05:00</pubdate>
<date>$Date: 2007-04-05 09:55:02 -0400 (Thu, 05 Apr 2007) $</date>
<author>
      <personname>
<firstname>Norman</firstname>
	<surname>Walsh</surname>
</personname>
    </author>
<copyright>
      <year>2006</year>
      <holder>Norman Walsh</holder>
    </copyright>
<abstract>
<para>The XML Processing Model Working Group has published the second
Working Draft of the pipeline language document.</para>
</abstract>
<dc:subject rdf:resource="http://norman.walsh.name/knows/taxonomy#XML"/>
<dc:subject rdf:resource="http://norman.walsh.name/knows/taxonomy#XProc"/>
</info>

<para xml:id="p1">A few weeks ago, I asked the
<link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/XML/Processing/">Working Group</link>
if they thought we could get another
<wikipedia page="XML_pipeline">XProc</wikipedia>
Working Draft published sometime
in December. They replied, why not next week? Is they great, or what?</para>

<para xml:id="p2">I think it actually took two weeks, but today, we published
the second Working Draft of
<link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/">XProc: An XML Pipeline
Language</link>.</para>

<para xml:id="p3">There's still lots of work to be done, though I hear
occasional, optimistic whispers that include “last call” and “January”
in the same breath.</para>

<para xml:id="p4">I think the big changes are:</para>

<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para xml:id="p5">The semantics have been rewritten so that they're declarative but without
reference to a rather amorphous “flow graph”.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para xml:id="p6">The “<code>declare-</code>” forms of the input, output, and parameter
elements are gone. The proponents of this change, myself among them, think
this is actually simpler. Depending on the context, those statements are declaring,
binding, or declaring-and-binding. Having two names for three concepts was, I think,
more confusing than having one. The argument that if there are three concepts
there should be three elements is compelling, but it's awfully verbose.</para>
<para xml:id="p7">If you have strong feelings about this (or anything else), please 
<link xlink:href="mailto:public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org">let us know</link>.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para xml:id="p8">The <tag class="attribute">source</tag> attribute no longer has two parts.
(No microparsing!) Instead, there are two attributes, just like everyone said
there should be last time I presented this work.</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>

<para xml:id="p9">Happy reviewing! (For more explanation and a little background,
see <link xlink:href="/2006/09/28/xprocfpwd">my essay</link> about our First
Public Working Draft.)</para>

</essay>

