<?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 and Calabash progress</title><biblioid class="uri">http://norman.walsh.name/2008/09/28/calabash</biblioid>
<volumenum>11</volumenum>
<issuenum>63</issuenum>
<pubdate>2008-09-28T16:16:46-04:00</pubdate>
<author>
      <personname>
<firstname>Norman</firstname>
	<surname>Walsh</surname>
</personname>
    </author>
<copyright>
      <year>2008</year>
      <holder>Norman Walsh</holder>
    </copyright>
<abstract>
<para>The second “Last Call” for XProc ended on Friday. Things are
looking good for progress to Candidate Recommendation. That means we
need implementations!</para>
</abstract>
<dc:subject rdf:resource="http://norman.walsh.name/knows/taxonomy#Calabash"/>
<dc:subject rdf:resource="http://norman.walsh.name/knows/taxonomy#W3C"/>
<dc:subject rdf:resource="http://norman.walsh.name/knows/taxonomy#XML"/>
<dc:subject rdf:resource="http://norman.walsh.name/knows/taxonomy#XProc"/>
</info>

<epigraph>
<attribution>
      <personname>
	<firstname>Jim</firstname>
<surname>Horning</surname>
      </personname>
    </attribution>
<para xml:id="p2">Nothing is as simple as we hope it will be.
</para>
</epigraph>

<para xml:id="p1">The 
<wikipedia page="XML_pipeline">XProc</wikipedia> specification started
a second “Last Call” period
<link xlink:href="/2008/08/20/xproc">back in August</link>. That period ended
on Friday, with
<link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/lastcall/">a scant 33</link>
issues raised. Many of those have already been
closed and I fully expect we'll close the rest in short order.
</para>

<para xml:id="p3">The only significant unresolved issue, I think, is the question
of the <tag>p:encrypt</tag>/<tag>p:decrypt</tag> steps for performing
XML encryption and decryption. With my chair's hat on, I'm trying to
engage with the <link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/">XML
Security Working Group</link> to come to closure on those steps.
Various constraints on my schedule have so far stymied my
efforts.</para>

<para xml:id="p4">As things stand, those steps are not part of the V1.0 specification.
And I think maybe we should leave it that way. The earliest XProc drafts
did have steps for that purpose, and there's at least one
<link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc-requirements/">use case</link>
that needs them, but we removed them some time ago when it became clear
that we (the members of the
<link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/XML/Processing/">XML Processing
Model Working Group</link>) didn't have the relevant expertise to define
them.</para>

<para xml:id="p5">I'd like to set a precedent for small, separate specifications
to define groups of steps related to one particular area or another.
I'd like to see the RDF community define a set of RDF-related steps,
and I think I'd like to see the security community define a set of
security-related steps.</para>

<para xml:id="p6">XProc is extensible, not everything has to be in the core language
in V1.0. But there aren't any obvious, hard-and-fast rules; we'll just
have to see how it works out.</para>

<para xml:id="p7"><inlinemediaobject>
<alt>XML Calabash Logo</alt>
<imageobject>
<imagedata align="right" fileref="/2008/projects/images/xmlcalabash-128.png"/>
</imageobject>
    </inlinemediaobject>With <link xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#RecsCR">Candidate
Recommendation</link> in our sights, it's time to start gathering
implementation experience. To do that, we need implementations. I know
of a few in the works, including my own, <link xlink:href="/2008/projects/calabash">Calabash</link>.</para>

<para xml:id="p8">Calabash is still “alpha” quality, but I think “beta” may be
visible in the not too distant future. I've finally flattened all the issues
that were preventing pipelines from calling user-defined pipeline steps.
That's been my highest priority bug for
a while now. There are a few more things that need to be fixed before
beta, but if you feel like taking it for a whirl, please feel free.</para>

<para xml:id="p9">And remember the <link xlink:href="/2008/08/24/xproc-dev">xproc-dev</link>
mailing list for discussing your adventures!</para>

</essay>

