16:03:57 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 16:03:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/14-xproc-irc 16:04:27 zakim, please mute me 16:04:28 Ht should now be muted 16:06:49 zakim, unmute me 16:06:49 Ht should no longer be muted 16:07:39 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/14-agenda.html 16:07:56 Call: XProc telcon 16:08:02 Chair: Henry S. Thompson (pro tem) 16:08:07 ScribeNick: ht 16:08:14 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 16:08:18 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/14-agenda.html 16:08:31 Present: Henry, Paul, Mohamed, Vojetch 16:08:36 Apologies: Norm 16:08:57 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 16:09:08 Next meeting: 21 Nov. 16:09:17 Regrets for 21 Nov: Henry, Mohamed 16:10:20 +Alex_Milows 16:10:30 Present+ Alex 16:12:05 Topic: Charter 16:12:16 It runs out at the end of this month 16:12:43 RESOLUTION: Request a charter extension, recharter later 16:12:57 How long an extension? 16:14:40 RESOLUTION: Request an 8 month extension, to allow for the summer 16:19:33 Topic: HTTP multipart 16:19:47 Consensus by email that content model of multipart is just body+ 16:20:28 And that the prose about headers inside multipart has to go as well 16:21:50 Then we have Voytech's message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2010Jan/0008.html 16:22:28 The default might conflict -- should this be an error, or should we make it required? 16:23:19 or should we instead specify that the derfault is to inherit? 16:23:44 s/The default/VT: The default/ 16:23:50 s/or should/AM: or should/ 16:23:58 s/derfault/default/ 16:25:24 VT: content-type is required on c:body 16:26:24 AM: Doing the inheritance will not make it easier to understand 16:27:00 ... we should just make it required, and assume that people will mostly not use c:header Content-Type with c:multipart 16:27:37 AM: So, two alternatives: leave as is but make clear inconsistency is an error; make required 16:31:05 VT: Any pblm with making it required? 16:31:40 ... If you are building it dynamically, you might have to find it in a header. . . 16:31:48 AM: Same even w/o multipart 16:32:28 AM: Given the long list of possible types, it's hard to be sure what the right default is, so making it required avoids having to pick 16:33:32 RESOLUTION: make the content-type attribute required on c:multipart 16:34:41 Topic: namespace and prefix attrs -- missing error 16:35:00 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2010Jan/0012.html 16:35:39 TV: What happens if you specify wrapper-prefix or wrapper-namespace but no wrapper, on p:data? 16:36:39 HT: Because the implicit default is c:data, that's an error (the same error as an explicit wrapper with a : in) 16:37:03 RESOLUTION: Make clear that if if you specify wrapper-prefix or wrapper-namespace but no wrapper, on p:data, that's an error (the same error as an explicit wrapper with a : in) 16:37:17 Topic: Test Suite 16:37:51 TV: 50 new tests, prefix, namespace, http-request 16:37:57 HT: WooHoo -- gold start 16:38:00 s/start/star/ 16:39:24 Topic: Default processing model 16:39:26 -PGrosso 16:39:29 -Vojtech 16:39:30 -mzergaou 16:39:30 -Alex_Milows 16:39:32 -Ht 16:39:33 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 16:39:42 Attendees were PGrosso, Vojtech, Ht, mzergaou, Alex_Milows 16:39:44 PG: What's next on this? 16:40:01 HST: We have comments from the TAG, which I need to summarise and present to this group 16:40:20 HST: Then we decide what change, if any, to make, and whether to publish a First PWD. 16:44:37 PGrosso has left #xproc 16:56:46 ht has joined #xproc 16:59:26 RRSAgent, make logs world-visible 16:59:32 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:59:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/14-xproc-minutes.html ht 16:59:35 zakim, bye 16:59:35 Zakim has left #xproc 16:59:40 rrsagent, bye 16:59:40 I see no action items