See also: IRC log
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/02/05-agenda
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/01/29-minutes
Accepted.
Jim and Vojtech will attend remotely. Alex, Henry, Norm expected in person.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
Norm: I propose to request publication of that document as a Working Group Note, are there any objections?
None heard.
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Feb/0010.html
Norm: Any comments or proposes for changes?
Alex: Shouldn't we start with a review of the existing requirements document?
Norm: I'll add that to the agenda
Norm: Thank you, Jim, for doing
that review.
... I think the net-net is that there's some similarity but
sufficient differences that there's probably no value in
attempting to coordinate more closely.
Jim: The only overlap really is
the executable content; they say a processor may provide
additional executable content. In theory you could drop XProc
in there.
... There's some ambiguity in the spec wrt the context item; we
could ask them about that. They're also using XPath 1.0, but I
don't see any reason they couldn't upgrade.
Norm: Ok, but do you want the WG to do that?
Jim: I think we should send suggestions.
<scribe> ACTION: A-252-01 Jim to draft a proposed response to the SCXML WG. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/05-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
None reported.
Jim: I'm pretty much ready to republish the steps.
Norm: Should we put that on the f2f agenda?
Jim: Yes
Norm: Ok.
-> http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc-v2-req/
Adjourned.