15:57:38 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 15:57:38 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-irc 15:57:40 zakim, this will be xproc 15:57:40 ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes 15:57:46 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 15:57:48 Date: 6 January 2011 15:57:50 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-agenda 15:57:52 Meeting: 186 15:57:54 Chair: Norm 15:57:56 Scribe: Norm 15:57:58 ScribeNick: Norm 15:58:30 ht has joined #xproc 15:59:57 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 16:00:08 +??P3 16:00:13 zakim, ? is me 16:00:13 +ht; got it 16:00:15 +Norm 16:00:56 PGrosso has joined #xproc 16:01:06 Vojtech has joined #xproc 16:01:12 +MoZ 16:01:27 +[ArborText] 16:01:59 +Jeroen 16:02:07 Zakim, Jeroen is Vojtech 16:02:07 +Vojtech; got it 16:02:30 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 16:03:10 +Alex_Milows 16:03:38 zakim, who's on the phone? 16:03:38 On the phone I see Norm, ht, MoZ, PGrosso, Vojtech, Alex_Milows 16:03:46 Present: Norm, Henry, Mohamed, Paul, Vojtech, Alex 16:04:07 Topic: Accept this agenda? 16:04:07 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-agenda.html 16:04:12 Accepted. 16:04:18 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 16:04:18 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes.html 16:04:26 Accepted. 16:05:09 Topic: Next meeting: telcon, 13 Jan 2011? 16:05:35 Regrets from Mohamed; possible regrets from Norm; Henry to chair if we don't skip the meeting. 16:05:44 Topic: Review of the template note 16:06:05 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/template-note.html 16:06:07 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/template-note.html 16:07:09 Norm points to Mohamed's comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Dec/0011.html 16:07:26 Norm: Anyone think I got the rules for parsing "{" and "}" wrong? 16:07:28 No comments heard. 16:10:21 Mohamed proposes renaming p:in-scope-names to p:set-in-scope-names 16:10:26 Norm: I'm not moved. 16:11:13 Vojtech: We also have p:value-available() to check if an option is set; so maybe values would be better in the name. 16:11:37 Norm: Any other comments? 16:12:18 Mohamed: I'm persuaded the the verb question isn't relevant here. 16:12:50 Norm: I'm not sure I like values better, but I won't lie down in the road over the name. 16:13:01 Vojtech: No, p:in-scope-names is ok with me? 16:13:04 s/me?/me./ 16:13:13 Norm: Anyone else? 16:13:14 None heard. 16:13:26 Norm: I propose to leave the name unchanged. Any objections? 16:13:40 Accepted. 16:14:14 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. 16:15:16 Norm: I'm sort of moved. I'm not thrilled with p:parameterize-document, but p:template-document works. 16:15:21 Vojtech: What about just p:template? 16:15:25 +1 16:15:25 Henry: I have to say I like that... 16:16:15 Norm: I can't think of any problem with p:template. Anyone prefer *not* to name it p:template? 16:16:59 Norm: I think the proposal is to rename p:document-template to simply p:template 16:17:25 Accepted. 16:18:03 Norm: The rest of Mohamed's note observes that the error links are broken and we don't have any examples. 16:18:49 Mohamed: The declaration of the steps aren't the same as the declarations in XProc; the background color is missing. 16:19:10 ACTION: Norm to produce a new draft. 16:22:28 Mohamed: what about the error namespace? 16:22:39 Zakim, mute me 16:22:39 MoZ should now be muted 16:23:45 Vojtech: Yes, don't we encourage users to use our error namespace? 16:24:02 Norm: That was specifically for err:XD0030, I think, not the errors namespace. 16:25:27 Vojtech: Or maybe it was the xproc-step namespace? 16:25:31 Norm: Yes, that rings a bell. 16:25:40 Brief searching doesn't turn up the relevant prose from the spec. 16:26:18 Norm: So where are we? 16:26:44 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. 16:27:03 Henry: Yes, but if users are doing that, they're already in danger of walking on each other. 16:27:50 Henry: Given that we didn't publish a policy for that little symbol space, people use it at their own risk. 16:29:25 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. 16:29:40 Vojtech: Perhaps we could say that we discourage users from using the err: namespace? 16:29:40 -ht 16:29:59 Vojtech: And perhaps something similar for the XProc step namespace? 16:30:04 Norm: I'd be ok with that. 16:31:17 +??P0 16:31:30 zakim, ? is me 16:31:30 +ht; got it 16:31:50 gotta go take Max to school... 16:31:59 -Alex_Milows 16:32:38 Norm: I think the proposal is to add a note of the form "Users are discouraged from using the error namespace..." 16:32:56 Accepted. 16:33:06 Zakim, unmute me 16:33:06 MoZ should no longer be muted 16:33:30 Zakim, mute me 16:33:30 MoZ should now be muted 16:33:57 -ht 16:34:01 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. 16:34:26 +1 16:34:34 Accepted. 16:34:59 Topic: Review of comments on the processor profiles document 16:35:07 -> file://localhost/projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/ 16:35:07 +[IPcaller] 16:35:24 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/ 16:35:42 Norm: There aren't any new comments. 16:35:48 Henry: I haven't looked at it. 16:36:37 Norm: I think all we need to do is close the loop with David Lee that we're not comfortable adding more profiles 16:36:57 Henry: What about Vojtech's comment? 16:37:05 Vojtech: I think it's obvious that we expect a namespace aware processor. 16:37:21 Norm: I think that is what we meant, but if it's not clear... 16:37:22 -ht 16:37:45 ht has joined #xproc 16:37:46 Vojtech: We refer to the term "namespace well-formed document", I think that naturally assumes a namespace aware processor. 16:38:04 Yes, that's what I was looking for 16:38:14 Norm: I think you're right. Namespace well-formed is absolutely definitive, I think. 16:38:26 Norm: So we can close your issue without change? 16:38:29 Vojtech: Yes, I think so. 16:39:05 +??P12 16:39:10 zakim, ? is me 16:39:10 +ht; got it 16:39:47 ACTION: Henry to close the loop with David Lee to get his assent to not add new profiles. 16:40:15 Norm: If that works out, then I think we should begin the process of getting this published as a PR. 16:40:29 Topic: Definition of an XProc processor 16:40:57 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Nov/0052.html 16:41:07 Norm: Vojtech made a proposal that I liked. 16:41:28 Norm: I'll draft an erratum to add that definition to the spec. 16:41:51 Norm: Any other business? 16:42:13 Zakim, unmute me 16:42:13 MoZ should no longer be muted 16:42:27 We've got stuff we can do in email, I propose that we *don't* meet next week. 16:42:35 Next meeting is 20 January. Any objections? 16:42:46 None heard. 16:42:55 Norm: Any regrets for 20 January? 16:43:11 None heard. 16:43:23 Adjourned. 16:43:23 -Norm 16:43:25 -PGrosso 16:43:26 -Vojtech 16:43:27 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 16:43:29 -MoZ 16:43:29 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:43:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html Norm 16:43:37 -ht 16:43:39 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 16:43:41 Attendees were ht, Norm, MoZ, PGrosso, Vojtech, Alex_Milows, [IPcaller] 16:43:52 PGrosso has left #xproc 18:51:01 Zakim has left #xproc 18:55:43 ht has left #xproc 19:01:28 MoZ has joined #xproc 20:29:48 MoZ has joined #xproc 22:09:29 Norm has joined #xproc 23:37:54 Norm has joined #xproc