See also: IRC log
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-agenda
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/06-minutes
Accepted.
No regrets heard.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
Norm: We've got a bunch of open issues. Henry, want to give us an update?
Henry: The only changes I've got planned are the one's minuted last week. Renaming of the profiles, renaming B' to S, and changing of a bit of wording in 4.2.3.
Norm: Thank you, Henry.
... Let's skim over the open issues and see how many we feel
comfortable marking as closed.
... I think issue 1 is resolved.
Vojtech: I think so.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to review isssue 3 (2) and 3 (3) as editorial making changes as the editor sees fit [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
Henry: WRT comment 4, add a
sentence to the beginning of section 3 clarifying how the
classes are derived from the table below.
... Comment (5) is resolved by section 7 in the latest
draft.
Norm: That leaves (1); Liam objects to calling the Infoset a data model.
Henry: If I changed it to "the infoset or data models that capture similar information"...is that OK?
Paul: Sure.
Norm: Issue 4 was a thread we did about browsers. I think we can close that.
Alex: It's possible the browser
could do more, but I don't think we're going get a better
story.
... I'd like XInclude, but we don't have a profile for that the
browsers could do.
Henry: I think it's fine; in so far as the point of the full profile is that you basically have the document that the author committed to, I think having XInclude but not external entities is odd in that respect.
Alex: Unless you're in a DTD-less world, then it's not odd.
Norm: Issue 5 is about test cases, but we're going to try not to do CR, so we can close it, yes?
No objections
Norm: Issue 6 from the Core
WG.
... I think we've removed "recommended" which helps, and I
think we'll need something in the introduction to spell out why
we chose the profiles we did.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to attempt to draft that prose, cf. cmsmcq's comment 1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
Norm: Issue 7; I don't think we're going to get the browsers to move on that.
Alex: The point there was the second bit, having standalone have an interpretation.
Henry: The browsers aren't going
to pay attention to the standalone declaration.
... Unless we change the XML spec to change the default. The
problem is that the default is standalone=no. So if we ask the
browsers to change to make standalone=no an error, we'll break
all XHTML. It's a lose-lose situation.
... The one thing we could imagine doing is to say that there's
a media-type dependent default which is standalone=yes. What
we'd be asking the browsers to do is two things: (1) give an
error in the presence of an explicit standalone=no, and (2)
give an error for non-HTML XML unless there's an explicit
standalone=yes
Norm: In 1997, maybe. But today it's just not worth it. We'd be asking every user serving non-XHTML XML to change.
Henry: So how would Core feel
about saying that the XML XHTML5 spec can default
standalone=no
... If we don't do this, then we should have raised an issue on
XHTML5 saying that they're not raising an error when XML says
they should.
Further discussion, leading to the observation that standalone is a validity constraint
Paul: I'm happy to have the Core
WG say something if it helps make things work better.
... as long as it doesn't rewrite the XML spec.
Alex: I think the question is, if you look at the combination of our new document with the smallest profile and the XHTML5 spec, what's the interpretation of the standalone attribute.
<scribe> ACTION: Paul to put standalone on the Core agenda. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
Norm: Let's skip 8 for the
moment, I think we've resolved 9 by removing the word
"recommended"
... I think 10 is resolved.
... I think 11 and 12 are just observations, not comments on
the spec
... I think 13 is resolved by adding section 7
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to add a note to the effect that we are talking about static parsing, not dynamic environments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-xproc-minutes.html#action04]
Henry: issues 14 and 15 are informational, not comments on the spec
Norm: Issue 16 is clearly a bug.
Norm encourages everyone to read xproc-dev
Adjourned