See also: IRC log
Date: 20 Nov 2008
<scribe> Meeting: 130
<scribe> Scribe: Norm
<scribe> ScribeNick: Norm
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/20-agenda
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/13-minutes
Accepted.
Skipping 27 Nov, US Thanksgiving.
No regrets heard.
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2008Nov/0098.html
Norm explains the situation and proposes to strike "or made available through p:namespaces"
Accepted.
Norm explains that it's only about user convenience.
Henry suggests that since XSLT 2.0 allows something similar, we should too.
Alex: I agree with Henry
Norm: If you match /, you get all the nodes in the document.
Mohamed: Is it the only place where we should do this?
Norm: After a quick check, I don't see any others that make any sense.
Proposal: Make the change.
Mohamed: What about www-form-url-encode.
Norm: Well...www-form-url-encode does allow match=/, but will invariably produce a dynamic error if you do that.
Accepted.
See: http://exproc.org/proposed/steps/
Norm: I think we should allow people to reuse the c: namespace.
Alex: I wouldn't want to restrict what people can produce from their steps.
Mohamed: We have three namespaces, on two of them we explicitly don't want people to reuse them.
Richard: What about in inline documents?
Norm: We're pretty clear that content in an inline is just content and we don't care what it is.
Mohamed: If we used the c: namespace and we use an element that's already been defined in this specification, can we add an attribute to it?
Henry: I think we should just say that common sense suggests that such usages shouldn't overlap with the uses defined in this spec. unless the usage is identical.
Alex: I'm with Henry.
Mohamed: Today we don't mandate that if you extend the output of an existing step, you must use an extension attribute. So you could put a @type on c:result and that might effect interoperability.
Norm: This is a bigger can of
worms than I thought, perhaps we shouldn't say anything.
... If we do this later, does it push us back in the
process?
Henry: No, how could it effect the conformance of an implementation. This isn't a big deal.
<richard> X crashed :-(
Norm: So do we want to try to nail this down today, or come back to it later.
Henry: I'm fine to come back later
Mohamed: Me too.
Norm: Ok, we'll leave this.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/CR-xproc-20081126/
Norm: Any comments?
Mohamed: Congratulations!
Norm: Congrats to us all.
Mohamed: What's the future work?
Norm: We need to get the test suite finished, we need to encourage implementors, and we need to turn our attention to the default XML processing model.
Adjourned.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/spec./spec. unless the usage is identical./ Found Scribe: Norm Inferring ScribeNick: Norm Found ScribeNick: Norm Present: Norm Mohamed Alex Paul Henry Richard Regrets: Michael Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/20-agenda Found Date: 20 Nov 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-xproc-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]