XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 162, 17 Dec 2009


See also: IRC log


Norm, Paul, Henry, Mohamed, Vojtech


Accept this agenda?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/17-agenda


Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/12/03-minutes


Next meeting: telcon, 7 Jan 2010

No regrets heard.

Status of the editor's draft

Norm attempts to summarize.

Norm: I'm afraid we're in a state where we can continue tinkering or do the last call. I think we should just do the last call.

Henry: Go for it.

CR issues

Let's see if we can close a couple more

Version attribute issues

Norm summarizes.

Norm: For the purpose of determining pipeline version, it only occurs on p:declare-step, p:pipeline, and p:library.

Vojtech: What if we want to provide more control in V2?

Henry: Why would we do that, and if we did, we'd have to use a different name. That seems simpler.

Norm: I can live with that.

Proposal: version on p:xslt isn't a conflict because XProc version is only on the three elements named above.


193 p:http-request authentication concerns

Henry: The world is moving faster than RFC2617 so maybe we want to make things looser.

Vojtech: I think so too.
... We need to change the text and he'd like to reserve the method 'token'.

Norm: I think it's reasonable to think that's what 'token' will mean, but we can't standardize that before it's done.

Vojtech: So if someone uses token in the meantime, that's their problem.

Norm: I think so.

Proposal: Make the authentication language looser as suggested.


171 Default binding for variable, option, and parameters.

Norm summarizes.


187 No media type

General agreement that we agreed we *would* do it.

<MoZ> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/08/09-minutes

Mohamed: We agreed to do this in August.

Proposal: Define application/xproc+xml

Henry: Yes, and both pipeline and libraries should be served with that type.

Norm: And we'll say that it has the same fragid syntax as application/xml, per 3023bis


Options whose names conflict

Norm: In 4.8.1 we say that it isn't an error, you just can't use the shortcut syntax to specify values for them.

Realistic publication plans

Norm: I'll try to have something by Monday, otherwise definitely by 4 January.

Proposal: The editor is authorized to publish the next editor's draft with which he is satisfied.
... As a new Last Call WD


Any other business?

Henry: I'm not prepared to lead a discussion now, but the TAG briefly discussed our default processing model.

<ht> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/10-tagmem-minutes.html#item07

Henry: There was one time-sensitive bit of conversation. If you really think it's *the* one, then it should be referenced from 3023bis.

Norm: Yeah, that doesn't sound unreasonable.

Henry: It would be unreasonable for 3023bis to say that you *should* do this, but it might want to point helpfully at it.
... We might, for example, want to do that in our description of the application/xproc+xml media type.

Norm: I don't want to delay Chris, but I suppose if there's time it's worth doing.

Henry: I think the right thing to do is discuss it explicitly at the 7 Jan meeting and see if the WG has consensus that we should publish it as a LC draft.

Norm: Makes sense to me.


Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/12/17 16:44:39 $