RE: XProc Minutes 17 February 2011

Of course I tried to dial in using the old time. My apologies.

Vojtech


--
Vojtech Toman
Consultant Software Engineer
EMC | Information Intelligence Group
vojtech.toman@emc.com
http://developer.emc.com/xmltech


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-
> processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 4:27 PM
> To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> Subject: XProc Minutes 17 February 2011
> 
> [Fixed Subject:, sorry for the duplication.]
> 
> See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/17-minutes
> 
> [1]W3C
> 
>                                    - DRAFT -
> 
>                             XML Processing Model WG
> 
> Meeting 189, 17 Feb 2011
> 
>    [2]Agenda
> 
>    See also: [3]IRC log
> 
> Attendees
> 
>    Present
>            Paul, Norm, Henry, Alex
> 
>    Regrets
> 
>    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, 24 Feb 2011?
>          4. [8]Review of XML processor profiles draft
>          5. [9]Namespace documents
>          6. [10]Any other business?
> 
>      * [11]Summary of Action Items
> 
>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> 
>   Accept this agenda?
> 
>    -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/17-agenda.html
> 
>    Accepted.
> 
>   Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
> 
>    -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/03-minutes.html
> 
>    Accepted.
> 
>   Next meeting: telcon, 24 Feb 2011?
> 
>    Henry gives regrets for 24 Feb; no other regrets heard.
> 
>   Review of XML processor profiles draft
> 
>    Norm: Thank you, Henry.
> 
>    Paul: I like the way it's going, but I'm still not entirely sure
> what the
>    different classes, A, A', and B are.
> 
>    Henry: Yes, I agree. When I started, I thought there'd be one class
> per
>    profile, but that's not the way it worked out. I'll add a gloss.
> 
>    Paul: My other two things were even more editorial.
>    ... I'm not sure if everyone will understand the distinctions
> between
>    information items and properties and the classes.
> 
>    Henry: I'll think about that. I'm not sure an attempt to clarify
> would
>    help.
> 
>    Paul: Given that we're thinking of releasing a third edition of the
>    Infoset, I wonder if we should make an edition agnostic reference to
> the
>    Infoset.
> 
>    Norm: Vojtech also had some questions, but he's not here.
> 
>    Henry: I'll try to get John Cowan or Richard Tobin to look carefully
> at it
>    and see if I've got the class annotations correct. Some of these are
> not
>    at all obvious.
>    ... In some cases the choices are a little arbitrary.
>    ... They could be wrong. I'm going to wait a week and then try to
> take a
>    fresh look.
>    ... The question Vojtech asks is a tricky one. I had forgotten I
> think
>    that references isn't just for ID/IDREF.
> 
>    Alex: Should processing instruction notation just be X? References
> is more
>    complicated.
> 
>    Henry: I really don't like making references implementation
> dependent.
>    This just gets a little messier. As it says several times, this
> table uses
>    items/properties to identify things in the document. There are
> multiple
>    data models.
>    ... I'm going to leave notations and unparsed entities as X, but
>    ... I really don't like making references implementation dependent.
> This
>    just gets a little messier. As it says several times, this table
> uses
>    items/properties to identify things in the document. There are
> multiple
>    data models.
>    ... I'm going to leave notations and unparsed entities as X, but
>    ... I'm going to change processing instruction notation to X, but
> I'll
>    split id/idref references and entities/entities notation references
> into
>    two parts.
>    ... Everybody should report the references property with respect to
> IDs,
>    that's not negotiable.
>    ... Does that sound like it works?
> 
>    Norm: I think so...
>    ... So, Henry, you're going to prepare another draft for us?
> 
>    Henry: Yes. I'm afraid this means another WD though.
> 
>    Norm: Yes, but that's fine.
> 
>   Namespace documents
> 
>    Norm: Mohamed pointed out a few more oversights, anyone else see any
>    problems?
> 
>    Nobody says so.
> 
>    Norm: Ok, I'll fix the problems Mohamed pointed out and try again.
> 
>   Any other business?
> 
>    Alex: Do we have an XProc meeting planned at XML Prague?
> 
>    Henry: I've agreed to do a 10 minute slot about processor profiles.
> 
>    Alex: It would be nice to get some feedback.
> 
>    Adjourned.
> 
> Summary of Action Items
> 
>    [End of minutes]
> 
>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> 
>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version 1.135
> ([15]CVS
>     log)
>     $Date: 2011/02/17 15:25:55 $
> 
> References
> 
>    1. http://www.w3.org/
>    2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/17-agenda
>    3. http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-xproc-irc
>    4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/17-minutes#agenda
>    5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/17-minutes#item01
>    6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/17-minutes#item02
>    7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/17-minutes#item03
>    8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/17-minutes#item04
>    9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/17-minutes#item05
>   10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/17-minutes#item06
>   11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/17-minutes#ActionSummary
>   12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/17-agenda.html
>   13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/02/03-minutes.html
>   14. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>   15. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:22:12 UTC