XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 222, 18 Oct 2012


See also: IRC log


Norm, Henry, Alex, Jim, Murray
Vojtech, Cornelia


Accept this agenda?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/10/18-agenda


Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/10/11-minutes


Next meeting: telcon 25 Oct? F2F?

We'll skip 25 Oct and meet at the f2f.

Jim: Will we have good enough wifi to do VOIP at the f2f

Norm: Maybe.

Review of action items

<scribe> No progress reported *sad panda*

Agenda prep for f2f

Norm: Finishing up the processor profiles doc, the new requirements doc, and any step notes
... We've got a few proposals on the table: fixing parameters and binary (or non-XML) in pipelines
... I think working through those would be good.
... Any other suggestions?

Jim: If we can leave TPAC with a requirements document that we can work on by telcon, then I think that would be declaring vicory
... It would be even better if we could publish the zip note.

<scribe> ACTION: Norm to ask cmsmcq to see if he'll be at TPAC and might meet with us [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

Jim: Can we also look at the test suite again?

Norm: Oh, indeed. And we should run through the public comments.

Jim: There's someone who's made a bunch of comments about zip and unzip. I need about an hour to review those comments.

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2012Jan/0018.html

Jim: I'll try to update the doc this week.

Henry: Have we given up officially on a compact syntax? I don't have a brief for it, but I think we need to be happy with that as a decision that we've made.

Norm: I'm happy to leave that hanging at least through the f2f.

Alex: In the minutes last week, there was something about how we're going to evolve the steps. A registry for example.
... Separating the steps that we have from the language itself.

<alexmilowski> "JF: Do we need some discussion before we make this more specific?

<alexmilowski> AM: Yes, I think email discussion is needed"

<alexmilowski> That's what we said..."

Henry: I'm really quite interested in exploring of the idea of not having a separate spec but having a step registry
... Making it a little bit more like the IANA registry for media types. Make it possible to publish a document that documents a step and registers it.

Norm: Sure. The exproc.org site and the wiki were kind of supposed to go that way but haven't been very successful.

Henry: Successful or not, they don't have any normative force. We'd have to decide how much normative force we want them to have.

Murray: I'm wondering about if XProc wants to say anything in relation to micro XML.

Norm: Can you elaborate a little?

Murray: I think we might say that XProc can process micro XML.

Norm: I thought micro XML documents were XML 1.0 documents, but we could explicitly say it.

Alex: I'm going to try to get my 1.0 requirements/use cases action item done, that would be something to review.

Any other business?

None heard.


Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Norm to ask cmsmcq to see if he'll be at TPAC and might meet with us [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/18-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/10/18 14:29:25 $