14:41:55 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:41:55 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-xproc-irc 14:42:05 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 14:42:11 Chair: Henry S. Thompson 14:42:16 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 14:42:21 ScribeNick: ht 14:43:01 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/13-agenda.html 14:46:02 MSM has joined #xproc 14:48:37 Morning Michael 14:50:13 avernet has joined #xproc 14:53:42 good morning / afternoon, henry 14:54:01 we are running late this morning; I will be on the call, but may be late 14:54:28 OK -- it will be a short call, we may get to the Last Call decision before you arrive 14:55:23 PGrosso has joined #xproc 14:56:16 ruilopes has joined #xproc 14:57:14 Michael, do I have your proxy until you join? 14:59:37 Topic: Admin.Rollcall 15:00:39 zakim, this is xproc 15:00:39 ht, I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be xproc". 15:00:47 zakim, this will be xproc 15:00:47 ok, ht; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now 15:00:52 zakim, please call ht-781 15:00:52 ok, ht; the call is being made 15:01:27 zakim, who is on the call? 15:01:27 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has not yet started, ht 15:01:28 On IRC I see ruilopes, PGrosso, avernet, MSM, RRSAgent, Zakim, MoZ, ht 15:02:04 zakim, this is xproc 15:02:04 ok, ht; that matches XML_PMWG()11:00AM 15:02:12 richard has joined #xproc 15:02:26 +??P34 15:02:30 zakim, ? is avernet 15:02:32 +avernet; got it 15:02:57 +[IPcaller] 15:02:59 +??P2 15:03:00 zakim, ? is me 15:03:12 Zakim, what is the code ? 15:03:18 +richard; got it 15:03:18 Zakim, [IP is me 15:03:28 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ 15:03:42 +ruilopes; got it 15:04:00 Andrew has joined #xproc 15:04:39 +??P9 15:04:42 HT: Norm is running late, HST is chair _pro tem_ 15:04:44 zakim, ? is Andrew 15:04:44 +Andrew; got it 15:04:58 zakim, who is on the call? 15:04:59 On the phone I see PGrosso, Ht, Alex_Milows, avernet, ruilopes, richard, Andrew 15:05:28 HT: Apologies from MSM and Norm who will join later 15:05:42 Topic: Admin.agenda 15:06:27 HT: Accepted as published 15:06:40 Topic: Admin.next meeting 15:07:15 +MoZ 15:07:28 HT: We will meet next in two weeks, provided we get to Last Call this week 15:07:43 Topic: Admin.minutes 15:07:58 HT: Comments on these minutes: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/06-minutes.html 15:08:17 HT: Approved as they stand 15:08:29 Topic: Comments on the draft of 11 September 15:08:36 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html 15:09:19 AM: The appendix isn't there yet 15:10:09 HT: True, but as it's non-normative, so it can be added later 15:10:22 AM: I have a draft for part of it, we could add it right away 15:10:52 PG: I'd rather not do that, let's get the LC draft out, and add that in a subsequent draft when it's complete. There's a time issue here, with the Tech Plenary coming up 15:11:11 ... No objection to the idea of the appendix at all 15:11:43 AM: Consensus was that we would have this appendix 15:12:18 HT: Straw poll on 3 options: 15:12:31 ... 1) Publish ASAP w/o any appendix 15:12:55 ... 2) Publish same time with whatever Alex can supply by the time Norm needs it 15:13:12 ... 3) Hold publication for agreed complete appendix 15:13:20 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 15:14:02 PG: We could publish as is for last call, and publish a separate WG note asap 15:14:42 AM: We can get the text I've written already in in just a few minutes 15:14:50 AV: Sounds like option 2 is what you want 15:16:15 zakim, please call MSM-Office 15:16:15 ok, MSM; the call is being made 15:16:17 +MSM 15:16:22 PG: (2) ; HT: (2); AM: (2) ; AV (2) ; RL (2) ; RT (2) ; AG (2) ; MZ (2) 15:16:31 Here's the text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0053.html 15:16:32 HT: Unanimous straw poll result 15:16:46 Minus the "general" bit 15:17:28 Any objection to the editors being authorized to publish the 11 September draft with the addition of a non-normative appendix giving guidance on Namespace fixup to the extent possible w/o delaying publication? 15:18:08 RESOLVED: to publish the 11 September draft as a public Last Call WD with the addition of a non-normative appendix giving guidance on Namespace fixup to the extent possible w/o delaying publication? 15:18:59 Topic: Split the spec? 15:19:38 q+ to ask about terminology and conformance 15:19:42 HT: Discussion -- could do it later, not a substantive question 15:20:09 AM: Prefer to keep it as one document, easier right now, and easier for consumers down the road 15:20:21 ack MSM 15:20:21 MSM, you wanted to ask about terminology and conformance 15:21:11 MSM: People say it's not substantive, but it does affect something crucial, namely the ability to say that you conform to the spec. 15:21:50 ... If we split the spec., and version the parts separately, will people end up having to say "conforms to 1.n of the spec and 1.m of the library?" 15:22:49 ... Also, splitting would make the framework very abstract, or we need to allow ourselves to refer to examples in the library 1.0 15:23:21 ... Does the library of steps make sense outside the context of the XProc framework? 15:23:38 HT: Anybody prepared to argue in favour? 15:24:16 RESOLVED: We will not split the spec. before going to Last Call 15:25:16 Topic: Test cases 15:25:36 HT: Some discussio about where they are going to come from by email 15:25:58 ... Where is the energy going to come from for managing test collection? 15:26:19 RT: Implementors will produce tests 15:26:34 ... Lets wait and see what they look like, and if we can put them into a framework 15:26:59 MSM: Would a task force help? 15:27:31 HT: Indeed, has worked some times 15:27:40 zaki, who is here? 15:27:44 zakim, who is here? 15:27:44 On the phone I see PGrosso, Ht, Alex_Milows, avernet, ruilopes, richard, Andrew, MoZ, MSM 15:27:47 On IRC I see alexmilowski, Andrew, richard, ruilopes, PGrosso, avernet, MSM, RRSAgent, Zakim, MoZ, ht 15:28:45 RT: Happy to work on test cases, but not until I need tests for my own implementation and am developing them 15:29:33 MSM: Last Call ends? 15:29:43 HT: 24 October 15:30:02 MSM: Only 5 weeks to know what to say our test input to the CR decision will be 15:30:28 ... That's pretty soon, if we don't have any serious pushback on the spec. itself 15:30:53 HT: Two ways we could go -- push hard on tests right away, or lengthen the last call period 15:31:13 MSM: Or just expect we will have some gap between the end of LC and the beginning of CR 15:31:38 AM: This period is a really good time to focus on test coverage 15:31:57 ... We can respond to questions by increasing test coverage 15:32:23 ... an opportunistic approach -- test what seems tricky/controversial/novel to commentators 15:32:29 HT: Likes the idea 15:33:25 HT: I agree that the whole WG should be focussed on testing for the LC period 15:34:46 MSM: That's OK by me, if the entire WG is willing 15:35:13 HT: Anyone unhappy with guidance to the chair along these lines? 15:35:21 HT: So RESOLVED 15:36:09 -avernet 15:36:10 -PGrosso 15:36:11 HT: Congratulations all around 15:36:11 -ruilopes 15:36:13 -Alex_Milows 15:36:14 -Andrew 15:36:15 -richard 15:36:17 -MoZ 15:36:18 -Ht 15:36:19 -MSM 15:36:21 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 15:36:23 Attendees were Ht, Alex_Milows, PGrosso, avernet, [IPcaller], richard, ruilopes, Andrew, MoZ, MSM 15:36:49 PGrosso has left #xproc 15:37:51 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:37:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-xproc-minutes.html ht 15:37:59 RRSAgent, make logs world-visible 15:39:31 avernet has left #xproc 15:51:42 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 15:51:49 +Murray_Maloney 15:52:16 -Murray_Maloney 15:52:17 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 15:52:18 Attendees were Murray_Maloney 17:17:44 alexmilowski has left #xproc 17:38:01 Zakim has left #xproc 18:55:40 alexmilowski_ has joined #xproc 20:32:26 avernet has joined #xproc