XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 130, 20 Nov 2008


See also: IRC log


Norm, Mohamed, Alex, Paul, Henry, Richard


Accept this agenda?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/20-agenda


Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/13-minutes


Next meeting: telcon 4 Dec 2008?

Skipping 27 Nov, US Thanksgiving.

No regrets heard.

Fixing static context before CR

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2008Nov/0098.html

Norm explains the situation and proposes to strike "or made available through p:namespaces"


Fixing p:wrap match="/"

Norm explains that it's only about user convenience.

Henry suggests that since XSLT 2.0 allows something similar, we should too.

Alex: I agree with Henry

Norm: If you match /, you get all the nodes in the document.

Mohamed: Is it the only place where we should do this?

Norm: After a quick check, I don't see any others that make any sense.

Proposal: Make the change.

Mohamed: What about www-form-url-encode.

Norm: Well...www-form-url-encode does allow match=/, but will invariably produce a dynamic error if you do that.


Allow extension steps to use c: namespace

See: http://exproc.org/proposed/steps/

Norm: I think we should allow people to reuse the c: namespace.

Alex: I wouldn't want to restrict what people can produce from their steps.

Mohamed: We have three namespaces, on two of them we explicitly don't want people to reuse them.

Richard: What about in inline documents?

Norm: We're pretty clear that content in an inline is just content and we don't care what it is.

Mohamed: If we used the c: namespace and we use an element that's already been defined in this specification, can we add an attribute to it?

Henry: I think we should just say that common sense suggests that such usages shouldn't overlap with the uses defined in this spec. unless the usage is identical.

Alex: I'm with Henry.

Mohamed: Today we don't mandate that if you extend the output of an existing step, you must use an extension attribute. So you could put a @type on c:result and that might effect interoperability.

Norm: This is a bigger can of worms than I thought, perhaps we shouldn't say anything.
... If we do this later, does it push us back in the process?

Henry: No, how could it effect the conformance of an implementation. This isn't a big deal.

<richard> X crashed :-(

Norm: So do we want to try to nail this down today, or come back to it later.

Henry: I'm fine to come back later

Mohamed: Me too.

Norm: Ok, we'll leave this.

Any other comments on the CR draft.

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/CR-xproc-20081126/

Norm: Any comments?

Mohamed: Congratulations!

Norm: Congrats to us all.

Any other business?

Mohamed: What's the future work?

Norm: We need to get the test suite finished, we need to encourage implementors, and we need to turn our attention to the default XML processing model.


Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/11/20 17:35:17 $