W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > June 2008

XProc Minutes 5 June 2008

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:44:16 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2abhz51kf.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/06/05-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

05 Jun 2008


   See also: IRC log[3]


           Norm, Vojtech, Andrew, Rui, Henry, Richard, Michael[xx:30-]





     * Topics
         1. Accept this agenda?
         2. Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. Next meeting: 12 June 2008
         4. Kind of node matched
         5. p:pack
         6. pfx:atomic-step
         7. Questions about p:http-request
         8. Any other business
     * Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/06/05-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/05/29-minutes


  Next meeting: 12 June 2008

   Norm gives likely regrets

   Henry to chair if Norm sends an agenda in time

   Rui gives regrets for 12 June

   Andrew gives regrets for 12, 19 June

  Kind of node matched


   Norm: I think the thrust here is that we should be more explicit in all
   our steps

   Henry: If it is the case that there's a majority case, then we could
   document that and only document exceptions

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to incorporate the suggestion to clarify the types
   of nodes matched by the steps into the next draft [recorded in

   Some discussion of (public-)xproc-dev@w3.org list; action on Henry ongoing

   Vojtech: We should align error codes for matched nodes of the wrong type.

   Norm: So a single error code for "you got the node type wrong"?

   Vojtech: Or one for each kind of error.

   Norm: I think that's a good idea.

   Henry: We could have errors for text-node-not-allowed,
   element-node-not-allowed, etc.

   Norm: Ok, I agree that's more informative.

   Proposal: Replace random dynamic errors for this case with a set of five,
   one for each node type.


   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to replace the random dynamic errors with the five
   so agreed [recorded in


   Wait until Mohamed is present.


   Vojech: I think it's about the same prefix that we're using for built-in
   steps and extension steps.

   Norm: Right. I'll fix that.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to fix the patterns so that they don't have the same
   prefix in 4.7 and 4.8 [recorded in

   MoZ, is that what you wanted for the pfx:atomic-step comment?

  Questions about p:http-request

   Vojtech: A couple of points; first, one of the examples is still using

   Norm: Ok, that's a bug.

   <MoZ> Norm, sorry I just joined so I don't have access to IRC history,
   I'll take a look to the minutes after the telcon

   Vojtech: In Section there's an attribute @detailed which if it's
   set to false, it's not clear what the step should generate.
   ... I think that if detailed=false, the c:response is not generated.

   <scribe> ACTION: Alex to investigate [recorded in

   Vojtech: And then there's the question of what to do if the response is a
   multipart response where there are nested multiparts.

   Norm: It's not immediately clear that that makes sense for us, but we
   should investigate.

   <scribe> ACTION: Alex to investigate [recorded in

   Vojtech: Two more things.
   ... In Section there are two conditions: if the content-type is
   XML or the encoding is base64 or not.
   ... Then different things can happen, but it seems to me that if the
   content-type is XML and encoding is base64 then the result is unspecified.

   Norm: I think the right thing is decode it and parse it, but we should say

   <scribe> ACTION: Alex to fix. [recorded in

   Vojtech: The last one is more of a question, in there's a note
   about text/html
   ... that says it'll be base64 encoded. But earlier it says that text types
   aren't encoded that way.
   ... So I wonder what the right answer is.

   Norm: Yeah, that does seem strange. I'd have expected the text to just be
   escaped markup.

  Any other business

   None heard.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Alex to fix. [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Alex to investigate [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Alex to investigate [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to fix the patterns so that they don't have the same
   prefix in 4.7 and 4.8 [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to incorporate the suggestion to clarify the types of
   nodes matched by the steps into the next draft [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to replace the random dynamic errors with the five so
   agreed [recorded in
   [End of minutes]


   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/06/05-agenda
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-xproc-irc
   [7] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [8] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-xproc-minutes.html#action02
   [9] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-xproc-minutes.html#action03
   [10] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-xproc-minutes.html#action04
   [11] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-xproc-minutes.html#action05
   [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-xproc-minutes.html#action06
   [13] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-xproc-minutes.html#action06
   [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-xproc-minutes.html#action04
   [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-xproc-minutes.html#action05
   [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-xproc-minutes.html#action03
   [17] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-xproc-minutes.html#action02
   [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[19] version 1.133 (CVS
    $Date: 2008/06/05 15:43:31 $

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 15:44:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:46 UTC