See also: IRC log
<jfuller> just updating http://www.w3.org/XML/Processing/
Henry, I think, has completed his actions. New draft published a few days ago: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/diff.html
Jim: I've looked through the draft with the idea of tracing our comments from cmsmcq and we have one outstanding thing, but everything else seems good.
Jim: Shall we look at that one?
Norm: Yes, let's.
Jim: The outstanding point is 17,
recursive XInclude processing. I wanted to ask Henry if he
thought he had addressed it.
... Michael thought we should remind folks that XInclude processing is recursive.
Norm: I didn't see it, but I don't have any objections to adding it.
Jim: So shall I?
Vojtech: Murray mentions it in the text he wrote.
<jfuller> redo image for displaying profiles relation to each other
<jfuller> definition of terms - EXPAND TERM GLOSSARY IN SECTION 1.1
<jfuller> match existing processors to profiles
<jfuller> integrate Murray rationale / Jim to suggest a short rationale for our picking each of
<jfuller> CMSMCQ - Conformance
<jfuller> address/tracking Vojtech comments
<jfuller> TRACKING CMSMCQ Comments
Jim: Those are my tasks. I'll add
XInclude in there.
... There are other things that depend on my task getting done. There are a few other of cmsmcq's comments that are still pending my tasks.
... I should be done by tomorrow.
Norm: Thanks, Jim. If you can get it done tomorrow we can try to make progress in email next week.
Paul: I already sent in some comments.
Norm suggests that we let the editor tackle them.
Paul: Well, I think we should talk about swapping the sections.
Norm: I'm reluctant to swap them.
Paul: Ok, then just adding an explanatory sentence at the top of section 2 pointing out that those terms are defined in section 3. I'm happy to leave that to the editor.
Norm: So, Jim, are you happy to attempt to address these?
Jim: Yes, I'm fine.
... Vojtech, you mentioned a couple of things last time. Have they been addressed?
Vojtech: Let me see...
... Yes, I think so.
Jim: And in section 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, are those better too?
Some discussion of those comments especially wrt unexpanded entity references.
Vojtech: Let me take a look at my comments and get back to you.
Alex: I'm looking at Henry's note
about what he changed; at the f2f, I think we had issues with
the sections we're discussing.
... It sounds like Henry thinks he's done. But yet, this section has the same reference problem.
The group looks through f2f minutes for discussion and actions.
Alex: Yes, there they are in the
minutes of 31 October.
... But there's no action.
<Vojtech> Regarding the Unexpanded Entiry Reference prose in 4.2.2, I was wondering at the f2f whether that item should be there at all. But I think that Henry's new prose is clear enough and I was just confused.
Some discussion of the term "EII" which clearly needs to be expanded.
Alex: I guess I need to review it again and see if I'm satisfied.
Jim: So should I add EII to the glossary?
Norm: No, I think you should expand EII to Element Information Item
Alex: What about numbering them or labeling them somehow and then just referring to the label?
Norm: I'm worried that labeling will make it more confusing, but I'm happy to leave it to the editor to try to expand EII in a way that's clear.
Some discussion of how to improve section 4.2.
Alex: Should I try to hash it out with Henry?
Norm: That seems reasonable. Jim's got a lot of things on his plate so I think if he did this last that would give you time.
Alex: Ok, I'll see what I can do.
Norm: Why don't we say this: Jim
will work on his items, Alex you try to close the loop with
Henry and come up with a revision, and if you can't reach Henry
today or tomorrow, Jim just makes the minimal fix of expanding
... If we got agreement on everything except 4.2, I think that'd be progress.
Jim: These are related to the issues you raised, right Vojtech?
Vojtech: Well, somewhat. In a
... I've gotten used to this section now, so maybe with the picture it could be improved.
Jim: Right, I have a new draft of the picture.
Norm: I have one other comment. I hate the word "outcomes" in 1.1 Background.
I think "data models" is much clearer there.
Paul: But we wanted to avoid the word data model.
Paul: The agreeement at the f2f was that we'd take itout.
Norm caves. "Nevermind then"
Norm: Any other comments about
the draft today?
... OK. I think it's coming together quite well.
Norm: I've heard nothing from
Liam about the charter. I don't think there's been much other
... Is there something that folks would like to talk about?
Alex: Shouldn't we try to make some progress?
Norm: Yes, do you have a specific suggestion?
Alex: Henry and I were talking about the binding work that I'm doing.
Norm: Yes, I encourage you to write that up!
Jim: I've been doing some work with XProc to manage Hadoop jobs. I could write that up.
Alex: Do we want to engage the
community on xproc-dev?
... We're going to get a bunch of stuff.
Jim: I think we're busy on the processing models document; we'll make more progress after, I think. I'm thinking of doing an XProc training day before XML Prague.
Alex: We also need to do some marketing.
Jim: Well, marketing and
community building. I think we need to start something
grassroots. That's why I was thinking the training thing would
be a good way to generate some reusable training
... Having the ability to download standard pipelines would be great.
... I can try to get some articles written.
... Someone from Rackspace added XML Calabash to the Maven repository.
Norm: With my chair's hat on, I find it hard to formulate next steps. Partly I think we just need to get the processing model document finished.
Alex: Yes, let's get that done. And keep updating the wiki.
Norm: Any parting comments, we're just about out of time.
Jim: I think there's been a tiny little uptick in usage. That's heartening.
Vojtech: We're also seeing more commercial interest.