See also: IRC log
<ht> Norm, shall I start the call w/o you?
<ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/18-agenda
<ht> scribenick: ht
HST: Agenda approved
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-minutes
HST: Minutes approved
... Next meeting 25 October
... NW apologies for 25 Oct and 1 Nov, HST to be in the chair
_pro tem_
... Charter has been extended for 1 year
PG: F2F agenda?
NW: one day on comment processing, one day on the future, I guess
PG: I find a detailed agenda helps folk to be prepared
NW: Well, item 1 is "Read and be familiar with the details of the issues list"
<scribe> scribenick: Norm
Extended 1 year.
A-86-01: Alex to review XSLT streaming requirements before the face-to-face.
<scribe> Continued
A-86-03: Henry to reply to the commenter (non-string parameters; issue 30)
<scribe> Completed
A-86-04: Henry to craft the prose to cover the defaulted output case
<scribe> Continued
A-87-01: Norm to take a stab at reconsidering the default inputs feature applying it only to ports that are not primary
<scribe> Continued.
A-87-02: Alex to propose some text about imports and circularity
<scribe> Continued
A-87-03: Norm to attempt to incorporate Richard's draft text about step type scope
<scribe> Continued.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#029
<scribe> Continued pending Henry's action
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#006
<scribe> Continued pending Norm's action
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#018
<scribe> Continued pending Norm's action
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#024
Norm outlines the issue and summarizes Jeni's observed options
Henry: I think we leave it impl. defined.
Some discussion of how defaulted attributes fit in: probably covered by the spirit of the best efforts clause.
Proposal: Leave it implementation-defined.
Accepted.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry will respond to the commenter on comment 24: passing PSVIs between steps. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#007
Norm reviews the points in Mike's message.
Point 1: accepted.
Point 2: changed validate-* to validate-with-*; accepted.
<MoZ> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0034.html
Point 3-6 are editorial.
Point 7: rejected, also made a separate issue
Point 8: discussion
Henry: I think we're pretty clear
that we're not answering this question.
... We're trying not to be too precise.
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#input-output
Henry: No, that doesn't work. An
XML document isn't an Infoset, the infoset is just a set of
terms
... But maybe it's ok.
... Sure let's try this.
Norm: What about A.3?
Henry: Yes, that looks fine too.
Norm: Anyone unhappy with the editor's resolution of Mike's point 8?
None heard.
Point 9:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Oct/0003.html
Norm: Anyone unhappy with the editor's resolution of Mike's point 9?
None heard.
That leaves some editorial clarifications, but I think we've covered the technical issues
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#012
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0023.html
Let's leave the "editorial" and "clarification" points to the editor unless they turn out not to be
Henry: I'm prepared to skip to
7.
... I think he's right.
Norm: I don't think these apply to the things *inside* the elements in the step
Henry: So you meant "children" not "contains"? If so, you'll have to repeat it endlessly.
Norm: Uhm...
Henry: Can't we just say that these rules don't apply inside p:inline?
Norm: Perhaps
Some discussion about what constitutes a step.
Norm: I think children would work.
Henry: What about giving the
fifth and sixth bullets a parallel construction
... If any element in the XProc namespace other than p:inline,
or any step, has text node children...
Norm: Sure, that would work for
me.
... I think that resolves point 7.
Point 8:
Henry: I think replacing "within
its container" by "immediately contained by that steps
container"
... Or if we've formally defined subpipline as the immediately
contained steps, then "the last step in document order in the
subpipeline"
Norm: I'm happy to attempt to clarify that.
Point 11:
Some of this is editorail.
Norm: I think we have clarified that select only selects elements or documents.
Henry: I've always said that
select needs the same namespace fixup we already
described.
... We've already re-worded 4.2 so there isn't a double "each"
anymore.
Norm: But that leaves "wrapped"
and an explicit pointer to 2.6.1
... The select question points to 5.2 and aon through to
p:input where it's covered.
Henry: No, I don't think we want to make the reference to 2.6.1 explicit.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to see if the commenter agree's we've addressed his concerns. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
Point 12:
Henry: I think we can replace "aggregated" with "concatentated" here.
Norm: I'm willing to do that and see if it helps.
Henry: The prose is still a bit
terse.
... I think we should unpack it and make it more explicit.
Norm: Ok.
Point 13:
Norm: We probably need to make the distinction between match and select more clear.
Henry: Not that you need to make the point about match only matching element or document nodes here. There's no free ride.
Norm: The WG's intent is clear
but the prose needs to be clearer.
... Should we make it an error to select a document node?
Henry: Yes.
Accepted.
Point 14:
Norm: I think it can be a static error.
Henry: Is this just a case where a processor could detect it statically if it wanted to?
Norm: It could, but why not make it static?
Henry: A select option to a step may be computed, so it has to be a dynamic error.
Norm: But for select on our compound steps and for test on when, then they should be static errors.
Henry: Let's try that and see if there's any pushback.
Norm: Any objections?
Accepted.
Adjourned.