- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 14:46:54 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2ei8perwx.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 186, 06 Jan 2011
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Henry, Mohamed, Paul, Vojtech, 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, 20 Jan 2011?
4. [8]Review of the template note
5. [9]Review of comments on the processor profiles document
6. [10]Definition of an XProc processor
* [11]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-agenda.html
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes.html
Accepted.
Next meeting: telcon, 20 Jan 2011?
Per “Any Other Business” below, the 13 Jan telcon is cancelled; next
meeting is 20 January 2011.
Review of the template note
-> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/template-note.html
Norm points to Mohamed's comments:
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Dec/0011.html
Norm: Anyone think I got the rules for parsing "{" and "}" wrong?
No comments heard.
Mohamed proposes renaming p:in-scope-names to p:set-in-scope-names
Norm: I'm not moved.
Vojtech: We also have p:value-available() to check if an option is set; so
maybe values would be better in the name.
Norm: Any other comments?
Mohamed: I'm persuaded the the verb question isn't relevant here.
Norm: I'm not sure I like values better, but I won't lie down in the road
over the name.
Vojtech: No, p:in-scope-names is ok with me.
Norm: Anyone else?
None heard.
Norm: I propose to leave the name unchanged. Any objections?
Accepted.
Norm: Now on to p:document-template; Mohamed proposes instead
p:template-document and points out, in particular, that
p:document-template would be another step starting "p:document", so makes
completion harder.
... I'm sort of moved. I'm not thrilled with p:parameterize-document, but
p:template-document works.
Vojtech: What about just p:template?
<MoZ> +1
Henry: I have to say I like that...
Norm: I can't think of any problem with p:template. Anyone prefer *not* to
name it p:template?
... I think the proposal is to rename p:document-template to simply
p:template
Accepted.
Norm: The rest of Mohamed's note observes that the error links are broken
and we don't have any examples.
Mohamed: The declaration of the steps aren't the same as the declarations
in XProc; the background color is missing.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to produce a new draft. [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Mohamed: what about the error namespace?
Vojtech: Yes, don't we encourage users to use our error namespace?
Norm: That was specifically for err:XD0030, I think, not the errors
namespace.
Vojtech: Or maybe it was the xproc-step namespace?
Norm: Yes, that rings a bell.
Brief searching doesn't turn up the relevant prose from the spec.
Norm: So where are we?
Vojtech: Saying we don't allow the error namespace for custom errors is
what I'd like, but I think that would be a breaking change.
Henry: Yes, but if users are doing that, they're already in danger of
walking on each other.
... Given that we didn't publish a policy for that little symbol space,
people use it at their own risk.
Norm: Yes, I'm with Henry, if you started with XC0067 for your private
errors, you've made an interesting design choice, but the consequences are
small.
Vojtech: Perhaps we could say that we discourage users from using the err:
namespace?
... And perhaps something similar for the XProc step namespace?
Norm: I'd be ok with that.
Norm: I think the proposal is to add a note of the form "Users are
discouraged from using the error namespace..."
Accepted.
Norm: How about we do this New Orlean's style? I'll publish a draft this
week. If no one objects in email next week, I'll send it off to be
published as an official WG note.
<ht> +1
Accepted.
Review of comments on the processor profiles document
-> file://localhost/projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
-> [17]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
Norm: There aren't any new comments.
Henry: I haven't looked at it.
Norm: I think all we need to do is close the loop with David Lee that
we're not comfortable adding more profiles
Henry: What about Vojtech's comment?
Vojtech: I think it's obvious that we expect a namespace aware processor.
Norm: I think that is what we meant, but if it's not clear...
Vojtech: We refer to the term "namespace well-formed document", I think
that naturally assumes a namespace aware processor.
<ht> Yes, that's what I was looking for
Norm: I think you're right. Namespace well-formed is absolutely
definitive, I think.
... So we can close your issue without change?
Vojtech: Yes, I think so.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to close the loop with David Lee to get his assent
to not add new profiles. [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
Norm: If that works out, then I think we should begin the process of
getting this published as a PR.
Definition of an XProc processor
->
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Nov/0052.html
Norm: Vojtech made a proposal that I liked.
... I'll draft an erratum to add that definition to the spec.
... Any other business?
We've got stuff we can do in email, I propose that we *don't* meet next
week.
Next meeting is 20 January. Any objections?
None heard.
Norm: Any regrets for 20 January?
None heard.
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to close the loop with David Lee to get his assent to
not add new profiles. [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to produce a new draft. [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([23]CVS
log)
$Date: 2011/01/06 19:00:58 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#ActionSummary
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-agenda.html
13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes.html
14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/template-note.html
15. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Dec/0011.html
16. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action01
17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
18. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action02
19. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Nov/0052.html
20. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action02
21. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action01
22. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
23. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 19:48:43 UTC