See also: IRC log
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-agenda.html
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes.html
Accepted.
Per “Any Other Business” below, the 13 Jan telcon is cancelled; next meeting is 20 January 2011.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/template-note.html
Norm points to Mohamed's comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Dec/0011.html
Norm: Anyone think I got the rules for parsing "{" and "}" wrong?
No comments heard.
Mohamed proposes renaming p:in-scope-names to p:set-in-scope-names
Norm: I'm not moved.
Vojtech: We also have p:value-available() to check if an option is set; so maybe values would be better in the name.
Norm: Any other comments?
Mohamed: I'm persuaded the the verb question isn't relevant here.
Norm: I'm not sure I like values better, but I won't lie down in the road over the name.
Vojtech: No, p:in-scope-names is ok with me.
Norm: Anyone else?
None heard.
Norm: I propose to leave the name unchanged. Any objections?
Accepted.
Norm: Now on to
p:document-template; Mohamed proposes instead
p:template-document and points out, in particular, that
p:document-template would be another step starting
"p:document", so makes completion harder.
... I'm sort of moved. I'm not thrilled with
p:parameterize-document, but p:template-document works.
Vojtech: What about just p:template?
<MoZ> +1
Henry: I have to say I like that...
Norm: I can't think of any
problem with p:template. Anyone prefer *not* to name it
p:template?
... I think the proposal is to rename p:document-template to
simply p:template
Accepted.
Norm: The rest of Mohamed's note observes that the error links are broken and we don't have any examples.
Mohamed: The declaration of the steps aren't the same as the declarations in XProc; the background color is missing.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to produce a new draft. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Mohamed: what about the error namespace?
Vojtech: Yes, don't we encourage users to use our error namespace?
Norm: That was specifically for err:XD0030, I think, not the errors namespace.
Vojtech: Or maybe it was the xproc-step namespace?
Norm: Yes, that rings a bell.
Brief searching doesn't turn up the relevant prose from the spec.
Norm: So where are we?
Vojtech: Saying we don't allow the error namespace for custom errors is what I'd like, but I think that would be a breaking change.
Henry: Yes, but if users are
doing that, they're already in danger of walking on each
other.
... Given that we didn't publish a policy for that little
symbol space, people use it at their own risk.
Norm: Yes, I'm with Henry, if you started with XC0067 for your private errors, you've made an interesting design choice, but the consequences are small.
Vojtech: Perhaps we could say
that we discourage users from using the err: namespace?
... And perhaps something similar for the XProc step
namespace?
Norm: I'd be ok with that.
Norm: I think the proposal is to add a note of the form "Users are discouraged from using the error namespace..."
Accepted.
Norm: How about we do this New Orlean's style? I'll publish a draft this week. If no one objects in email next week, I'll send it off to be published as an official WG note.
<ht> +1
Accepted.
-> file://localhost/projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
Norm: There aren't any new comments.
Henry: I haven't looked at it.
Norm: I think all we need to do is close the loop with David Lee that we're not comfortable adding more profiles
Henry: What about Vojtech's comment?
Vojtech: I think it's obvious that we expect a namespace aware processor.
Norm: I think that is what we meant, but if it's not clear...
Vojtech: We refer to the term "namespace well-formed document", I think that naturally assumes a namespace aware processor.
<ht> Yes, that's what I was looking for
Norm: I think you're right.
Namespace well-formed is absolutely definitive, I think.
... So we can close your issue without change?
Vojtech: Yes, I think so.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to close the loop with David Lee to get his assent to not add new profiles. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
Norm: If that works out, then I think we should begin the process of getting this published as a PR.
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Nov/0052.html
Norm: Vojtech made a proposal
that I liked.
... I'll draft an erratum to add that definition to the
spec.
... Any other business?
We've got stuff we can do in email, I propose that we *don't* meet next week.
Next meeting is 20 January. Any objections?
None heard.
Norm: Any regrets for 20 January?
None heard.
Adjourned.