See also: IRC log
Norm: New draft, thanks, Henry.
Henry: XProc is all over the map
with respect to xml:id.
... In 2.4.1, we don't list the references properties as ones which must be preserved.
... We ought to say something about what happens to the IDness of xml:id attributes as they flow through the pipeline.
Norm: I think we dropped the ball.
Henry: I think we should raise an
issue against XProc itself to raise the issue.
... In the profile spec, in 2.4, we need to add a note about implementing xml:id for documents flowing through the pipeline.
... or rather, "in conformance with xml:id"
... It's the primary input that's important.
Norm: With that ammendment, do you think it's ready to go public?
Norm: Ok, let's do it.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to update 2.4 in the profile spec to mention xml:id specifically and correct the typos Mohamed reported. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Propose: publish the resulting document as a new public WD
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to raise the xml:id issue against the XProc spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
Norm: I think Vojtech is right.
Alex: I think it's just an oversight.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to propose an erratum to fix it. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
Norm: Does anyone have suggestions for agenda items for TPAC?
Alex: Dealing with processor profiles, obviously. Then maybe XProc 1.1?
<ht> BTW, have I said here, I can't make it to TPAC
Norm: I'm not sure about 1.1, but some discussion of library of new steps.
Alex: Henry's template example would be a good thing to discuss too.
Norm: I'll have to review that thread, but I think that would require a new language feature.
Alex: I also think it would be good to spend some time looking at other specs thinking about what steps would be helpful for them.