<ht> Meeting: XML Processing Model WG telcon
<ht> ScribeNick: ht
<ht> Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
<ht> Chair: Henry S. Thompson (pro tem)
<ht> Agenda: [standard]
<ht> Present: Paul Grosso, Alex Milowski, Henry S. Thompson, Toman Vojtech
<ht> Regrets: Norm Walsh, Mohamed Zergaoui
<ht> HST: Minutes from 2 weeks ago approved
<ht> HST: Regrets for 11 Feb? . . . None
<PGrosso> Paul's attendance on the 11th is at risk.
<Vojtech> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/01/lc-comments/
<ht> HST: We believe that the 9 issues listed there (most recent one is 21 January) have been dealt with
<ht> Topic: Possible new issues
<ht> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2010Jan/0015.html
<ht> TV: Various cases wrt option and variable with the same name:
<ht> ... 1) Wrt option and variable in the same pipeline, in TV's impl. that's a static error
<ht> ... 2) A var. in a sub-pipe which appears to shadow an option in a surrounding pipe
<ht> HST: 3.2 Scoping of names says. . .
<ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#scoping
<ht> The scope of option and variable names is determined by where they are declared. When an option is declared with p:option (or a variable with p:variable), unless otherwise specified, its scope consists of the sibling elements that follow its declaration and the descendants of those siblings.
<ht> HST: The strict solution would be to make XS0004 parallel XS0002
<ht> TV: The alternative is to allow shadowing -- do we shadow anywhere else?
<ht> TV: Yes, sort of -- counters in nested 'for-each' loops
<ht> HST: Quite different
<ht> TV: Does XSLT allow shadowing?
<ht> ... What about a template var. with the same name as a global var?
* PGrosso will have to ring off soon.
<Zakim> -PGrosso
<ht> AM: XSLT <em>does</em> allow shadowing
<ht> HST: Yes, global by local, or local by local, but <em>not</em> global with global (!)
<ht> HST: We don't have global vs. local
<ht> AM: Question then is -- is it hard to do this later?
<ht> ... If we say you can't shadow now, will it be a radical change to allow it downstream?
<ht> HST: Wouldn't invalidate any existing docs. . .
<ht> PROPOSAL: Take the strict route for now
<ht> AM: Yes, it would take a lot of rethinking of the doc. to change this. . .
<ht> HST: Leave this until we are quorate. . .
<ht> Topic: Another issue
<ht> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2010Jan/0016.html
<ht> HST: I'm happy for the editor to do as much or as little as he likes on this -- it's editorial
<ht> Topic: Test Suite
<ht> TV: Not much progress -- a few additional tests
<ht> TV: Some multipart tests are still proving challenging
<ht> ... Waiting for NW to catch up
<ht> TV: Last Call ended on 2 Feb
<ht> HST: Cool
<ht> ... we are nearly done, I think
<ht> ... We need to focus very hard on whether we are ready to declare victory and go to PR
<ht> HST: It would be nice to have another implementation step up to the testing plate
<ht> TV: There is Jim Fuller's work with eXist/XQuery...don't know its status
<ht> TV: I saw signs of a small subset being implemented in PHP
<ht> AM: Two complete and some partial-but-positive would be good
<ht> AM: I will track down the state of the eXist work
<ht> HST: A report that passes what they've implemented and only fails where they haven't is indeed helpful
<ht> HST: Anonymous results are OK
<ht> TV: Standard step library is still broken
<ht> HST: My fault
<ht> Adjourned