- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:30:21 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2d414gaz6.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/14-minutes [1]W3C - DRAFT - XProc telcon 14 Jan 2010 [2]Agenda See also: [3]IRC log Attendees Present Henry, Paul, Mohamed, Vojetch, Alex Regrets Norm Chair Henry S. Thompson (pro tem) Scribe Henry S. Thompson Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Charter 2. [6]HTTP multipart 3. [7]namespace and prefix attrs -- missing error 4. [8]Test Suite 5. [9]Default processing model -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [10]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/14-agenda.html Next meeting: 21 Jan. Regrets for 21 Jan: Henry, Mohamed Regrets for 28 Jan: Voytech Charter It runs out at the end of this month RESOLUTION: Request a charter extension, recharter later How long an extension? RESOLUTION: Request an 8 month extension, to allow for the summer HTTP multipart Consensus by email that content model of multipart is just body+ And that the prose about headers inside multipart has to go as well Then we have Voytech's message [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2010Jan/0008.html VT: The default for content-type on multipart might conflict -- should this be an error, or should we make it required? AM: or should we instead specify that the default is to inherit? VT: content-type is required on c:body AM: Doing the inheritance will not make it easier to understand ... we should just make it required, and assume that people will mostly not use c:header Content-Type with c:multipart ... So, two alternatives: leave as is but make clear inconsistency is an error; make required VT: Any pblm with making it required? ... If you are building it dynamically, you might have to find it in a header. . . AM: Same even w/o multipart ... Given the long list of possible types, it's hard to be sure what the right default is, so making it required avoids having to pick RESOLUTION: make the content-type attribute required on c:multipart namespace and prefix attrs -- missing error [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2010Jan/0012.html TV: What happens if you specify wrapper-prefix or wrapper-namespace but no wrapper, on p:data? HT: Because the implicit default is c:data, that's an error (the same error as an explicit wrapper with a : in) RESOLUTION: Make clear that if if you specify wrapper-prefix or wrapper-namespace but no wrapper, on p:data, that's an error (the same error as an explicit wrapper with a : in) Test Suite TV: 50 new tests, prefix, namespace, http-request HT: WooHoo -- gold star Default processing model PG: What's next on this? HST: We have comments from the TAG, which I need to summarise and present to this group ... Then we decide what change, if any, to make, and whether to publish a First PWD. Summary of Action Items -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes formatted by David Booth's [13]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([14]CVS log) $Date: 2010/01/20 13:24:06 $ References Visible links 1. http://www.w3.org/ 2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/14-agenda.html 3. http://www.w3.org/2010/01/14-xproc-irc 4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/14-minutes#agenda 5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/14-minutes#item01 6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/14-minutes#item02 7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/14-minutes#item03 8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/14-minutes#item04 9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/14-minutes#item05 10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/14-agenda.html 11. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2010Jan/0008.html 12. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2010Jan/0012.html 13. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm 14. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 13:30:55 UTC