W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > December 2009

XProc Minutes 17 Dec 2009

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:46:51 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2skb9fszo.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 162, 17 Dec 2009


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Norm, Paul, Henry, Mohamed, Vojtech





     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 7 Jan 2010
         4. [8]Status of the editor's draft
         5. [9]CR issues
         6. [10]Version attribute issues
         7. [11]193 p:http-request authentication concerns
         8. [12]171 Default binding for variable, option, and parameters.
         9. [13]187 No media type
        10. [14]Options whose names conflict
        11. [15]Realistic publication plans
        12. [16]Any other business?

     * [17]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [18]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [19]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/03-minutes


  Next meeting: telcon, 7 Jan 2010

   No regrets heard.

  Status of the editor's draft

   Norm attempts to summarize.

   Norm: I'm afraid we're in a state where we can continue tinkering or do
   the last call. I think we should just do the last call.

   Henry: Go for it.

  CR issues

   Let's see if we can close a couple more

  Version attribute issues

   Norm summarizes.

   Norm: For the purpose of determining pipeline version, it only occurs on
   p:declare-step, p:pipeline, and p:library.

   Vojtech: What if we want to provide more control in V2?

   Henry: Why would we do that, and if we did, we'd have to use a different
   name. That seems simpler.

   Norm: I can live with that.

   Proposal: version on p:xslt isn't a conflict because XProc version is only
   on the three elements named above.


  193 p:http-request authentication concerns

   Henry: The world is moving faster than RFC2617 so maybe we want to make
   things looser.

   Vojtech: I think so too.
   ... We need to change the text and he'd like to reserve the method

   Norm: I think it's reasonable to think that's what 'token' will mean, but
   we can't standardize that before it's done.

   Vojtech: So if someone uses token in the meantime, that's their problem.

   Norm: I think so.

   Proposal: Make the authentication language looser as suggested.


  171 Default binding for variable, option, and parameters.

   Norm summarizes.


  187 No media type

   General agreement that we agreed we *would* do it.

   <MoZ> [20]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/08/09-minutes

   Mohamed: We agreed to do this in August.

   Proposal: Define application/xproc+xml

   Henry: Yes, and both pipeline and libraries should be served with that

   Norm: And we'll say that it has the same fragid syntax as application/xml,
   per 3023bis


  Options whose names conflict

   Norm: In 4.8.1 we say that it isn't an error, you just can't use the
   shortcut syntax to specify values for them.

  Realistic publication plans

   Norm: I'll try to have something by Monday, otherwise definitely by 4

   Proposal: The editor is authorized to publish the next editor's draft with
   which he is satisfied.
   ... As a new Last Call WD


  Any other business?

   Henry: I'm not prepared to lead a discussion now, but the TAG briefly
   discussed our default processing model.

   <ht> [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/10-tagmem-minutes.html#item07

   Henry: There was one time-sensitive bit of conversation. If you really
   think it's *the* one, then it should be referenced from 3023bis.

   Norm: Yeah, that doesn't sound unreasonable.

   Henry: It would be unreasonable for 3023bis to say that you *should* do
   this, but it might want to point helpfully at it.
   ... We might, for example, want to do that in our description of the
   application/xproc+xml media type.

   Norm: I don't want to delay Chris, but I suppose if there's time it's
   worth doing.

   Henry: I think the right thing to do is discuss it explicitly at the 7 Jan
   meeting and see if the WG has consensus that we should publish it as a LC

   Norm: Makes sense to me.


   Happy holidays and Happy New Year, everyone!

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([23]CVS
    $Date: 2009/12/17 16:44:39 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2009/12/17-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#item08
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#item09
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#item10
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#item11
  16. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#item12
  17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-minutes#ActionSummary
  18. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-agenda
  19. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/03-minutes
  20. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/08/09-minutes
  21. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/10-tagmem-minutes.html#item07
  22. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  23. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:10:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:47 UTC