- 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