W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > February 2010

XProc Minutes 18 Feb 2010

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:30:13 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2ocjhvzju.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/18-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 168, 18 Feb 2010

   See also: [2]IRC log


           Norm, Alex, Henry, Paul

           Vojtech, Mohamed




     * [3]Topics

         1. [4]Accept this agenda?
         2. [5]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [6]Next meeting: telcon, 25 Feb 2010?
         4. [7]020 wrapper-prefix and wrapper-namespace on p:data
         5. [8]How to get to PR
         6. [9]Any other business?

     * [10]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [11]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/18-agenda

   Henry: I won't be ready to talk about the default processing model before


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/11-minutes


  Next meeting: telcon, 25 Feb 2010?

   No regrets given.

  020 wrapper-prefix and wrapper-namespace on p:data

   Norm summarizes.

   Norm: My temptation is to leave it. Less spec churn and no actual harm.

   Henry: It's arguably the case that we were mistaken about why we did this
   and it's unlikely to be used, but the example is correct and it isn't
   wrong to leave it.

   Norm: Is anyone in favor of backing this change out?

   None heard.

   Proposal: Leave the status quo.



   Some discussion about to whom the "shoulds" are directed in 5.14.

  How to get to PR

   Norm summarizes the state of play wrt coverage and implementations.

   Henry: We need two passes in every row to go through without a hitch. We
   can go forward w/o but each case has to be justified.

   -> [14]http://tests.xproc.org/tests/optional/validrng-007.xml

   Henry: Remove this test. It's not a problem with XProc, it's a problem
   with underlying RNG implementations.

   Some discussion of other tests that could be written.

   Norm: In short: we're very close.
   ... Can anyone think of other roadblocks that I've overlooked.

   None heard.

  Any other business?

   None heard.


Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([16]CVS
    $Date: 2010/02/22 19:29:07 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/2010/02/18-xproc-irc
   3. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/18-minutes#agenda
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/18-minutes#item01
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/18-minutes#item02
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/18-minutes#item03
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/18-minutes#item04
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/18-minutes#item05
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/18-minutes#item06
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/18-minutes#ActionSummary
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/18-agenda
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/02/11-minutes
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#p.data
  14. http://tests.xproc.org/tests/optional/validrng-007.xml
  15. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  16. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 19:30:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:48 UTC