IRC log of xproc on 2011-01-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

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