See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
<scribe> ScribeNick: ht
<alexmilowski> On in just a second ...
<avernet> And joining in 2 seconds here... (sorry)
Andrew, we have regrets from Paul, right?
Nevermind, I've confirmed
come on Alex, we're waiting for you. . .
Accepted as distributed
Accepted as distributed
F2F in Cambridge MA next Thur and Friday: Norm, Henry, Paul, Alex, Michael (in part)
HST: We will try to announce some summary of discussion and decision making times, for those who are dialing in
Next telcon: 15 November, usual timing
No known regrets at this time. . .
<MSM> regrets from me for 15 November
<alexmilowski> Screaming child prevents me from unmuting...
No changes to published list
RT: At the end of the last
meeting I was leaning towards requiring declarations for
... They are short, don't require any bindings
... I think we all rejected the extreme interpretation of the _status quo_ which would require arbitrary recursive analysis
HST: [summarizes the 'use syntax'
... In the absence of email preparation, let's move on
AV: Please do send an example, but yes, let's move on
<scribe> ACTION: HST to send an example of a 'new syntax' resolution to issue 29 to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
RT: Don't we have approximate consensus on this, action A-87-03 refers
HST: First, let's look at comment 3, section 5.7.3 option 2
RT: I think MK has misunderstood
... The prefixes whose bindings are in question are those in the _result_ of a 'select' XPath, not in the 'select' XPath itself
HST: The problem arises because there is no example to hand
AM: I think we have to clarify with an example and with better text, what the purpose of 'default namespace bindings' actually _is_ at this point
RT: There is an example further down
HST: We need a simpler example earlier
RT: Aha, we should be looking at the _first_ numbered list -- OK, yes, I see the problem
HST: Enough here to guide the editor, let's leave it with him
<scribe> ACTION: NW to rewrite 5.7.3 by adding a simple 'select=' example alongside the 'match=' one at the beginning, and trying to clarify what the default namespace binding is for early on [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
HST: Moving on to comment 4, a clarification
AM: p:load is a step, p:document
... p:document leaves it implementation-defined whether we validate or not
HST: No, it says you must not validate
AM: I'm surprised that is there. . .
RT: What does it mean to say 'must not validate' ? 'Must not fail for validity errors' I could understand
HST: I think we're looking at the result of Norm trying to respond to MK's comment here. . .
RT: I think this needs to change
to clarify that p:document doesn't _fail_ because of a validity
... I think we should follow XSLT here and require that the external subset be read
... so that all entities are expanded
HST: Do we need to be more explicit about any other processor-dependent options?
AM: I would be sorry to disallow the possibility of a secure environment in which all input of any kind to a pipeline had to be valid
RT: I guess we need to discuss
this at the f2f
... I think AM's point should be an 'at user option' feature. . .
HST: OK, done until the f2f
... I think wrt MK's second point, NW's change in the 3 Oct. draft is sufficient
... Moving on to comment 6
... This is subsumed by issue http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#C070
... Issue 13 Comment 6 and Issue 70 should be responded to jointly
RT: The idea is to do things much more cheaply than would be the case if XSLT or XQuery were used
HST: Yes, determines whether you get an efficient implementation without waiting for an XSLT implementation which detects streamability
RT: I've suggested in the past
that we use XSLT stylesheets to provide exemplary
implementations of the steps like these
... removing any ambiguity as to how they work
HST: Interesting idea -- volunteers?
<alexmilowski> Richard suggested it...
RT: There may be problems in the details
HST: We'll leave that for now, as a start on subsequent discussion or issue 70
RT: Let's not get bogged down in details of individual steps
HST: Moving on to comment 9
RT: What is meant by 'namespace
aware DTD validation'?
... assume it means namespace-aware parsing
HST: I think this means, by contrast with the reference to Namespace Well-formed for p:document, this means that if validate='true', then we require Namespace Validity
RT: Right, e.g. IDs must be NCNames
<scribe> ACTION: NW to clarify by adding reference to Namespace Validity to the description of p:load with validate='true' [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/, Alex/, Alex, Michael (in part)/ Succeeded: s/Issue 18 Comment 6/Issue 13 Comment 6/ Found Scribe: Henry S. Thompson Found ScribeNick: ht WARNING: Replacing list of attendees. Old list: [IPcaller] New list: Ht avernet Andrew richard Alex_Milowski MSM Default Present: Ht, avernet, Andrew, richard, Alex_Milowski, MSM Present: Ht avernet Andrew richard Alex_Milowski MSM Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/11/01-agenda Got date from IRC log name: 1 Nov 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-xproc-minutes.html People with action items: hst nw[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]