See also: IRC log
No regrets heard.
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.
Let's see if we can close a couple more
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.
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.
General agreement that we agreed we *would* do it.
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
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.
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
... As a new Last Call WD
Henry: I'm not prepared to lead a discussion now, but the TAG briefly discussed our default processing model.
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.