See also: IRC log
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/01/29-agenda
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/12/11-minutes
Accepted.
No regrets heard
Jim: I've got the scxml review ready; where should I send it?
Norm: Send it to the WG list.
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.
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.
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.
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.
None heard