IRC log of xproc on 2012-04-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:57:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
13:57:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:58:21 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
13:58:21 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
13:58:21 [Norm]
Date: 5 April 2012
13:58:21 [Norm]
13:58:21 [Norm]
Meeting: 211
13:58:22 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
13:58:24 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
13:58:26 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
13:59:08 [Norm]
zakim, passcode?
13:59:19 [Norm]
zakim, this will be xproc
13:59:21 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I don't know what conference this is
13:59:31 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
13:59:40 [Norm]
zakim, passcode?
13:59:40 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, Norm
14:01:05 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
14:01:05 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has not yet started, Norm
14:01:07 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, jfuller, Liam, caribou
14:01:49 [Norm]
Regrets: Vojtech, Cornelia
14:02:21 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Murray, Jim
14:02:53 [Norm]
14:04:35 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
14:04:43 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Murray, Jim, Henry
14:04:48 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
14:04:54 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
14:05:20 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Murray, Jim, Henry, Alex
14:05:40 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has not yet started, Norm
14:06:21 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alexmilowski, ht, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, jfuller, Liam, caribou
14:06:38 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
14:06:38 [Norm]
14:06:44 [Norm]
14:06:51 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
14:06:51 [Norm]
14:07:24 [Norm]
14:07:41 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon, 12 April 2012
14:07:43 [Norm]
No regrets heard
14:07:54 [Norm]
Topic: Review of action items
14:08:21 [Norm]
No progress reported. All actions continued. Except Murray's :-)
14:08:40 [Norm]
Topic: Use cases and requirements for
14:08:50 [Norm]
14:09:36 [ht]
MM: Alex M's draft from 4/06
14:09:43 [ht]
... Some of the content is moved around abit
14:10:03 [ht]
... Some stuff from the Wiki moved in to the introduction
14:10:20 [ht]
... Added annotation to each use-case/req'd to identify their state
14:10:27 [ht]
... So that we can do an audit
14:10:36 [ht]
NW: Two comments
14:11:03 [ht]
... 1) Now that we have a document, it should be the location of record for Vnext use cases and req'ts
14:11:20 [ht]
JF: Should we in fact close off the wiki?
14:11:42 [ht]
NW: Not necessary, although put something at the top pointing to this doc't ASAP
14:11:52 [ht]
JF: I was worried about synchronisation
14:12:20 [ht]
NW: 2) There are use cases which we have satisfied, and those should not show up
14:12:44 [ht]
... Either via annotation and stylesheet or by just deleting
14:13:09 [ht]
AM: Do we see this as a Vnext-only requirements doc't, or an update to the old one?
14:13:35 [ht]
NW: Could go either way
14:13:54 [ht]
AM: I'd like to at least clean up, or even get rid of, some of the early use cases, e.g. from me
14:14:04 [ht]
... At very least don't make sense 'as is'
14:14:38 [ht]
NW: We could be _really_ good and include XProc pipelines that show how we satisfied the old ones
14:15:16 [ht]
NW: What I really care about is distinguishing old from new, so we see what we really have to work on
14:15:30 [ht]
AM: I completely agree
14:15:54 [ht]
MM: Yes, the old stuff is there so we can do the audit
14:16:09 [ht]
AM: Is this all of the old ones?
14:16:33 [ht]
MM: Yes -- I started from the old source to do this, didn't remove anythihg
14:16:40 [ht]
14:17:09 [ht]
JF: I think doing a case-by-case audit is a good idea
14:17:17 [ht]
NM: On telcon, or offline?
14:17:18 [alexmilowski]
Hmm… having trouble with T-mobile … no signal at all. :(
14:17:35 [ht]
MM: I anticipated doing it offline
14:18:05 [ht]
MM: I was hoping AM would make a pass
14:18:18 [ht]
HST: Note that AM has lost audio
14:18:23 [ht]
MM: I'll speak to him later
14:19:03 [ht]
NM: Right, so would everyone please have a go at reviewing the use cases, and if appropriate drafting an XProc snippets
14:19:13 [ht]
AM: I will have a look when I can, and work with MM
14:19:43 [ht]
AM: What I'm missing is what we've agreed about the primary goals of Vnext
14:20:05 [ht]
ACTION: NM to find the discussion of goals in the minutes and distill some prose for use in the Reqts Doc
14:21:01 [ht]
AM: Do we want to divy up the use cases
14:21:03 [ht]
14:21:33 [ht]
NM: My thought was that we would give people a week to read this, and then decide on tactics
14:22:14 [ht]
AM: We did go over the req't doc for V1 -- did the outcome of that review turn up in the test suite?
14:22:33 [ht]
NM: In some cases, but there is no metadata which records that fact
14:22:51 [ht]
JF: Add tests to the test suite as we articulate new req'ts?
14:23:02 [ht]
AM: Could be difficult, e.g. for DB access
14:23:11 [ht]
JF: Test could be informal
14:23:44 [ht]
AM: I'd think the new req'ts docs is the right place for informal/prose test cases
14:23:57 [ht]
... Indeed they are important, and need to be in the doc
14:24:31 [ht]
NM: So yes, that argues for leaving the old ones in, as long as their state (solved, won't fix, etc.) is easily evident
14:25:33 [ht]
AM: What happened with our charter renewal?
14:26:11 [ht]
NM: LQ has made a draft, I've reviewed it, it started up the chain, we will get it again
14:26:18 [ht]
AM: Hiccup?
14:26:46 [ht]
NM: Yes, but resolved -- we will be rechartered to do a VNext if the req'ts review says we need one
14:29:12 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
14:29:13 [alexmilowski]
If only the w3c didn't use CVS
14:29:14 [alexmilowski]
14:29:18 [Norm]
rrsagent draft-minutes
14:29:32 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:29:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
14:38:50 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
15:13:07 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
16:30:41 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc