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

XProc Minutes 13 Oct 2011

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:59:44 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2pqi1vswv.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 199, 13 Oct 2011


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Alex, Jim, Norm, Paul, Henry, Vojtech





     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 20 October 2011?
         4. [8]XML processor profiles issues
         5. [9]Any other business?

     * [10]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [11]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/06-minutes


  Next meeting: telcon, 20 October 2011?

   No regrets heard.

  XML processor profiles issues

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html

   Norm: We've got a bunch of open issues. Henry, want to give us an update?

   Henry: The only changes I've got planned are the one's minuted last week.
   Renaming of the profiles, renaming B' to S, and changing of a bit of
   wording in 4.2.3.

   Norm: Thank you, Henry.
   ... Let's skim over the open issues and see how many we feel comfortable
   marking as closed.
   ... I think issue 1 is resolved.

   Vojtech: I think so.

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry to review isssue 3 (2) and 3 (3) as editorial
   making changes as the editor sees fit [recorded in

   Henry: WRT comment 4, add a sentence to the beginning of section 3
   clarifying how the classes are derived from the table below.
   ... Comment (5) is resolved by section 7 in the latest draft.

   Norm: That leaves (1); Liam objects to calling the Infoset a data model.

   Henry: If I changed it to "the infoset or data models that capture similar
   information"...is that OK?

   Paul: Sure.

   Norm: Issue 4 was a thread we did about browsers. I think we can close

   Alex: It's possible the browser could do more, but I don't think we're
   going get a better story.
   ... I'd like XInclude, but we don't have a profile for that the browsers
   could do.

   Henry: I think it's fine; in so far as the point of the full profile is
   that you basically have the document that the author committed to, I think
   having XInclude but not external entities is odd in that respect.

   Alex: Unless you're in a DTD-less world, then it's not odd.

   Norm: Issue 5 is about test cases, but we're going to try not to do CR, so
   we can close it, yes?

   No objections

   Norm: Issue 6 from the Core WG.
   ... I think we've removed "recommended" which helps, and I think we'll
   need something in the introduction to spell out why we chose the profiles
   we did.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to attempt to draft that prose, cf. cmsmcq's comment
   1 [recorded in

   Norm: Issue 7; I don't think we're going to get the browsers to move on

   Alex: The point there was the second bit, having standalone have an

   Henry: The browsers aren't going to pay attention to the standalone
   ... Unless we change the XML spec to change the default. The problem is
   that the default is standalone=no. So if we ask the browsers to change to
   make standalone=no an error, we'll break all XHTML. It's a lose-lose
   ... The one thing we could imagine doing is to say that there's a
   media-type dependent default which is standalone=yes. What we'd be asking
   the browsers to do is two things: (1) give an error in the presence of an
   explicit standalone=no, and (2) give an error for non-HTML XML unless
   there's an explicit standalone=yes

   Norm: In 1997, maybe. But today it's just not worth it. We'd be asking
   every user serving non-XHTML XML to change.

   Henry: So how would Core feel about saying that the XML XHTML5 spec can
   default standalone=no
   ... If we don't do this, then we should have raised an issue on XHTML5
   saying that they're not raising an error when XML says they should.

   Further discussion, leading to the observation that standalone is a
   validity constraint

   Paul: I'm happy to have the Core WG say something if it helps make things
   work better.
   ... as long as it doesn't rewrite the XML spec.

   Alex: I think the question is, if you look at the combination of our new
   document with the smallest profile and the XHTML5 spec, what's the
   interpretation of the standalone attribute.

   <scribe> ACTION: Paul to put standalone on the Core agenda. [recorded in

   Norm: Let's skip 8 for the moment, I think we've resolved 9 by removing
   the word "recommended"
   ... I think 10 is resolved.
   ... I think 11 and 12 are just observations, not comments on the spec
   ... I think 13 is resolved by adding section 7

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry to add a note to the effect that we are talking
   about static parsing, not dynamic environments [recorded in

   Henry: issues 14 and 15 are informational, not comments on the spec

   Norm: Issue 16 is clearly a bug.

  Any other business?

   Norm encourages everyone to read xproc-dev


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to add a note to the effect that we are talking about
   static parsing, not dynamic environments [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to review isssue 3 (2) and 3 (3) as editorial making
   changes as the editor sees fit [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to attempt to draft that prose, cf. cmsmcq's comment 1
   [recorded in [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: Paul to put standalone on the Core agenda. [recorded in

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version 1.136 ([24]CVS
    $Date: 2011/10/13 14:58:38 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/06-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#ActionSummary
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-agenda
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/06-minutes
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
  15. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  16. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  17. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action03
  18. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action04
  19. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action04
  20. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  21. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  22. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action03
  23. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  24. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 15:00:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:49 UTC