W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > February 2011

XProc Minutes 3 Feb 2011

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:03:10 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2tygloxtd.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/03-minutes

[1]W3C

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

03 Feb 2011

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Norm, Henry, Vojtech

   Regrets
           Paul, Mohamed, Alex

   Chair
           Norm

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 10 Feb 2011?
         4. [8]Henry's PR draft of XML processor profiles
         5. [9]Proposed errata documents
         6. [10]Any other business?

     * [11]Summary of Action Items

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   We're not really quorate, but let's push on anyway.

  Accept this agenda?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/27-agenda.html

   Accepted.

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html

   Accepted.

  Next meeting: telcon, 17 Feb 2011?

   At the end of this meeting, we opted to cancel next week's telcon.

  Henry's PR draft of XML processor profiles

   Henry: If we leave it as I've written it, it's just a hint to remind folks
   that the XML spec doesn't require much.
   ... If you wanted to do better, you'd have to enumerate the infoset items
   that are required.
   ... But I can imagine that people will be frustrated if they have to
   *both* point to this profile document *and* enumerate the items.

   Vojtech: I wonder if this small sentence opens new freedom in how to
   interpret this spec.

   Norm: I don't think so, it's just more explicit about what isn't being
   said.

   Henry: The question is, should we put the additional detail in this spec.
   ... We'd have to make section 3 normative in a way that it isn't now.

   Vojtech: It reduces the number of interpretations.

   Henry: I'm not sure it's reasonable.

   Norm: Why not?

   Henry: Here's an example: the infoset spec has three different properties
   having to do with prefix bindings, any two of which will do

   Norm: So we could say in that case that you have to provide two of the
   following three properties.

   Henry: Does any one know if the widely used processors support the
   namespace attributes property?

   Norm: The Java processors based on JAXP don't.

   Henry: Some of the Python one's do. Whether they should or not is an
   another question.

   Norm: I think it would be nice to do it.
   ... Henry, would you try to draft it?

   Henry: Yes, but it'll take a little while. I won't know if it's going to
   be straightforward or not until I've worked my way further into it.
   ... I can imagine that it might wind up being a two-dimensional structure
   depending on what parts of what specs you support.
   ... And what about characters, most specs don't return individual
   character information items.
   ... As you can see, it's going to take a little while to work it out.

   Norm: Ok. I think it's good that we're going to look at this.

  Proposed errata documents

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-proposed-errata.html

   ->
   [15]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-proposed-template-errata.html

   General agreement that the editor got all of them right.

  Any other business?

   None heard.

   Norm: Should I cancel 10 Feb?

   Henry: yes.

   Norm: Ok. Next meeting is 17 Feb.

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [16]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([17]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2011/02/03 16:57:31 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/03-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2011/02/03-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/03-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/03-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/03-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/03-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/03-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/03-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/03-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/03-minutes#ActionSummary
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/27-agenda.html
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-proposed-errata.html
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-proposed-template-errata.html
  16. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  17. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 3 February 2011 17:03:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 3 February 2011 17:03:44 GMT