Status of outstanding bugs

We currently have 5 outstanding bugs. Here's a review of where I think we stand on them.

===============

29790 [xslt30] Sample stylesheet for xml-to-json conversion uses a reserved namespace 

This has been open for a long time awaiting tests to the revised xml-to-json stylesheet. I will try to make progress on this before the meeting tomorrow.

===============

29819 [XSLT30] (editorial) Core functions

Messy terminology issue.

I decided to remove the term "core functions".

* Where the term is used casually, I have found a more helpful phrase (sometimes just "function")

* Where the precise meaning of the term is important, I have in effect expanded the definition in situ.

See also 
ACTION 2016-11-17-004: MK to revisit bug 29819 (table in appendix G1)
to see if he can improve the current solution; also update the bug.

I reviewed and revised the table in appendix G1 and with these revisions I think it is OK.

===============

29889 [xslt30] Add clarifications on stylesheet invocation options

This action is relevant:

ACTION 2016-11-17-003: MK to implement the proposal in ABr's email [1]
and ensure that it resolves bugs 19827 and 29889, or push back if he
encounters problems. ETA 1 December 2016.

[marked in the minutes as]  completed - see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-wg/2016Dec/0003.html
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-wg/2016Nov/0006.html

19827 here is a misprint for 29827.

ABr's email (2016Nov/0006) is dated 16 November. It addresses the topic of bug 29827; his proposals were accepted and incorporated into the resolution of bug 29827, and appear in the current draft spec.

However, ABr's email (2016Nov/0006) does not directly address the proposal in 29889#4 which is dated 7 October. 

I think we can accept the proposal in comment #4 and close the bug. I think the proposal is uncontroversial. I have provisionally applied the changes, so you can review the text, in the hope that we can accept the proposal next week.

Point #9 of comment #4 was left a little open-ended. (I said "I'll take another look at this".) This was a response to Abel's suggestion (in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-wg/2016Sep/0001.html):

<quote>Add a small table that lists the invocation constructs we currently have. A smaller version of the table in message 005 of the June 2016 archive may help untangle the text that currently describes the myriad of required/supported invocation methods.</quote>

I have taken another look at it, but I find it difficult to produce something that adds clarity without over-simplifying.

===============

29983 [XSLT30] Scanning expressions and function calls 

I made a proposal in comment #9, and I stand by this proposal; I don't think the subsequent discussion identified anything that needs to be changed.

===============

29984 [XSLT30] Lessen the restraint on required raising of XTSE3430 for constructs not guaranteed streamable per our rules

I think we have consensus to withdraw this bug (i.e. close as invalid or wontfix).

Received on Thursday, 12 January 2017 17:08:52 UTC