- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:59:44 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2pqi1vswv.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 199, 13 Oct 2011
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Alex, Jim, Norm, Paul, Henry, Vojtech
Regrets
Mohamed
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 October 2011?
4. [8]XML processor profiles issues
5. [9]Any other business?
* [10]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [11]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/06-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting: telcon, 20 October 2011?
No regrets heard.
XML processor profiles issues
-> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
-> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
Norm: We've got a bunch of open issues. Henry, want to give us an update?
Henry: The only changes I've got planned are the one's minuted last week.
Renaming of the profiles, renaming B' to S, and changing of a bit of
wording in 4.2.3.
Norm: Thank you, Henry.
... Let's skim over the open issues and see how many we feel comfortable
marking as closed.
... I think issue 1 is resolved.
Vojtech: I think so.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to review isssue 3 (2) and 3 (3) as editorial
making changes as the editor sees fit [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Henry: WRT comment 4, add a sentence to the beginning of section 3
clarifying how the classes are derived from the table below.
... Comment (5) is resolved by section 7 in the latest draft.
Norm: That leaves (1); Liam objects to calling the Infoset a data model.
Henry: If I changed it to "the infoset or data models that capture similar
information"...is that OK?
Paul: Sure.
Norm: Issue 4 was a thread we did about browsers. I think we can close
that.
Alex: It's possible the browser could do more, but I don't think we're
going get a better story.
... I'd like XInclude, but we don't have a profile for that the browsers
could do.
Henry: I think it's fine; in so far as the point of the full profile is
that you basically have the document that the author committed to, I think
having XInclude but not external entities is odd in that respect.
Alex: Unless you're in a DTD-less world, then it's not odd.
Norm: Issue 5 is about test cases, but we're going to try not to do CR, so
we can close it, yes?
No objections
Norm: Issue 6 from the Core WG.
... I think we've removed "recommended" which helps, and I think we'll
need something in the introduction to spell out why we chose the profiles
we did.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to attempt to draft that prose, cf. cmsmcq's comment
1 [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
Norm: Issue 7; I don't think we're going to get the browsers to move on
that.
Alex: The point there was the second bit, having standalone have an
interpretation.
Henry: The browsers aren't going to pay attention to the standalone
declaration.
... Unless we change the XML spec to change the default. The problem is
that the default is standalone=no. So if we ask the browsers to change to
make standalone=no an error, we'll break all XHTML. It's a lose-lose
situation.
... The one thing we could imagine doing is to say that there's a
media-type dependent default which is standalone=yes. What we'd be asking
the browsers to do is two things: (1) give an error in the presence of an
explicit standalone=no, and (2) give an error for non-HTML XML unless
there's an explicit standalone=yes
Norm: In 1997, maybe. But today it's just not worth it. We'd be asking
every user serving non-XHTML XML to change.
Henry: So how would Core feel about saying that the XML XHTML5 spec can
default standalone=no
... If we don't do this, then we should have raised an issue on XHTML5
saying that they're not raising an error when XML says they should.
Further discussion, leading to the observation that standalone is a
validity constraint
Paul: I'm happy to have the Core WG say something if it helps make things
work better.
... as long as it doesn't rewrite the XML spec.
Alex: I think the question is, if you look at the combination of our new
document with the smallest profile and the XHTML5 spec, what's the
interpretation of the standalone attribute.
<scribe> ACTION: Paul to put standalone on the Core agenda. [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
Norm: Let's skip 8 for the moment, I think we've resolved 9 by removing
the word "recommended"
... I think 10 is resolved.
... I think 11 and 12 are just observations, not comments on the spec
... I think 13 is resolved by adding section 7
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to add a note to the effect that we are talking
about static parsing, not dynamic environments [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action04]
Henry: issues 14 and 15 are informational, not comments on the spec
Norm: Issue 16 is clearly a bug.
Any other business?
Norm encourages everyone to read xproc-dev
Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to add a note to the effect that we are talking about
static parsing, not dynamic environments [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to review isssue 3 (2) and 3 (3) as editorial making
changes as the editor sees fit [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to attempt to draft that prose, cf. cmsmcq's comment 1
[recorded in [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Paul to put standalone on the Core agenda. [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version 1.136 ([24]CVS
log)
$Date: 2011/10/13 14:58:38 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/06-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes#ActionSummary
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-agenda
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/06-minutes
13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
15. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action01
16. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action02
17. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action03
18. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action04
19. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action04
20. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action01
21. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action02
22. http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action03
23. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
24. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 15:00:24 UTC