W3C

- DRAFT -

XML Processing Model WG

29 Jan 2014

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Norm, Henry, Alex, Jim
Regrets
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm

Contents


Accept this agenda?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/01/29-agenda

Accepted.

Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/12/11-minutes

Accepted.

Next meeting: 5 Feb 2014.

No regrets heard

Open actions

Jim: I've got the scxml review ready; where should I send it?

Norm: Send it to the WG list.

Face-to-face planning

Norm: Jim wants to participate remotely.

Henry: I'll try to borrow a high-end conference phone for the meeting.

Norm: Thank you, Henry

ACTION A-241-01: Henry to see about borrowing a quality conference phone for the face-to-face

Henry: I noted an email somewhere about a request for an XProc status report at the eXist pre-conference
... No, I was mistaken. It wasn't a request.
... It was a link to a presentation at Stylus Studio.

Jim: I have a pending pull request to eXist to update the Calabash implementation.

Alex: I see Jim is on the pre-conference agenda now, I don't think he was there yesterday.

<ht> http://www.stylusstudio.com/XML-Editor-Blog/2014/01/15/XML-Pipelines-Presentation.aspx

Jim: What's the agenda?

Norm: I think we should begin to look at technical solutions for the requirements.

Norm: In advance of a rechartering, that's a little risky, but if nothing else it's an exploration of the requirements.

Alex: I've made dinner reservations for us on Wednesday night, 19 Feb, at 7:30p.

Rechartering planning

Norm: The thrust here is: no more XPP

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Jan/0020.html

<jf_2013> +1 to that

<ht> Silence gives consent

No objections heard.

Norm: If we're not carrying XPP forward, I think we should wrap it up and publish it as a note.

<jf_2013> +1

<jf_2013> to publishing as a note

Alex: Do we need to do anything?

Henry: I think I've done the important ones. The only question is, should we take the pictures and discussion about validation back out?

Norm: Why?

Henry: It's had no review.

Norm: I think we can leave it in.

Jim: For what it's worth, I found the flowcharts useful.

ACTION A-240-02: Package up the current XPP document as a Note and request publication.

Norm: I'll touch base with Liam and drop the open actions related to XPP except for that one.

Progress on 1.0 bugs

Norm: We've received some community pushback on resolving 1.0 bugs. I did a couple.

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Jan/0009.html

Norm attempts to explain.

Henry: I think I prefer caching, but we can't do that as an erratum, it has to go in V2.

Norm: I suppose as an erratum, we have to say the document-uri property is empty.

Henry: My inclination is to simply publish an erratum that says there's a bug here; that the spec is underspecified; it's defacto implementation dependent in V1; we'll fix it in V2.

Norm: I'm happy with that.

Norm mumbles on about what XML Calabash does

<jf_2013> I thnk your response was valid, there does seem to be some interesting corner cases with pitfalls lurking

<jf_2013> which may indicate deeper investigation

Norm: I propose we take Henry's suggestion; document the bug, explain that it's probably too large a change to make as an erratum and assert that it's implementation dependent

<jf_2013> +1

Accepted.

Alex: How are we tracking these in V2?

Norm: I just wrote it in a buffer. I'll work on figuring out how to track them; perhaps at github

ACTION A-241-03: Norm to ask Liam about using github

<jf_2013> +1 to using git/github

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Jan/0011.html

Norm: Bug 21001

<jf_2013> +1 looks good to me as well

Alex: Looks good to me.

Henry: Yep.

ACTION A-241-04: Norm to construct an actual errata document with these two errata in it

<alexmilowski> BTW, document-uri() comes from the XDM from the document node ancestor if it exists.

<alexmilowski> So, by default it returns whatever that property contains.

Progress on step libraries

Jim reports no progress on zip and unzip

Norm reports no progress on the file and system utility libraries

Norm mutters a bit about his semantic web step experiments

ACTION A-241-04 Alex to describe use cases for RDF support that require the ability to go back and forth from the triples to the documents.

Jim: What part of our requirements does RDF come under?

Norm: I don't think it's a requirement per se, but building step libraries is valuable.

Any other business?

None heard

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-01-29 15:48:45 $