Accept this agenda?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/01/24-agenda

Accepted.

Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2013/01/17-minutes

<jfuller> +1

Accepted.

Next meeting: 31 Jan 2013

No regrets heard.

Propose to cancel: 7 and 14 Feb

Accepted.

Some informal discussion of the telcon date and time:

-> http://www.doodle.com/fxhx3h99kquvz4qa

Move to Wednesdays at 09:00a CST (07:00a PST, 15:00GMT)?

Review of open action items

Norm: I culled a lot of items

Henry: I haven't looked at 215-02
... I will
... I was working on 215-04 as the call started and will finish today

Norm: Alex, do you want to work on the use cases you're assigned?

Alex: Yes, I think those are good ones in the mix.
... I think we need to sort through all the work we did earlier. I think we should publish that as a note.
... I'm not going to get to that real soon.

Norm: I think you're right

Alex: I'm happy to do that after I get back from Prague

<scribe> ACTION: Norm to resurface getting the original use cases/requirements document refactored into a Note after XML Prague [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

Norm: I'll still draft a note for my steps and we should put zip/unzip back on the list, I guess

<scribe> ACTION: Norm to put p:zip/p:unzip steps on the agenda post-XML Prague [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-xproc-minutes.html#action02]

XML Processor Profiles review

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html

Norm: Let's cut to the chase if we can, are the two actions on *this* agenda, all that's left to be done?
... I tried to go through the actions, the comments that Alex posted, and the document and I thought I got everything.

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2013Jan/0010.html

WG discusses the state of affairs

Norm wonders, wrt http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/03/15-minutes, if the note in 2.3 would simply be: "The external decl profile, without validation, gives the complete infoset of a well-formed XML document, wtih validation, it gives the complete infoset of a well-formed, and validate ddocument"

<alexmilowski> http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-xproc-minutes.html#action03

Henry: Yes, I think just add that to the end of the note I added.
... But it's not actually true. If you interpret the external decl profile with validation as meaning use a validating processor that processes external decl then you may not get anything.

Norm: Ok, with a note to the effect that an invalid document won't return an infoset.

Alex: Depends on the validation: DTD or Schema.

Norm: Ok, I'll be careful about that
... And we could add the note that Henry refers to after that in those minutes
... Should I try both of those things?

Alex: Sounds good to me.

<jfuller> +1

Henry: The way the proposed text above is written, the distinction we want to make is validating processor. A non-validating processor conformant to th EDP, gives the complete infoset of a document. A validating processor may give nothing, but if it gives something, it will..."

Alex: We say "parser" instead of processor in the note in 2.1

Henry: That's probably a mistake.

Alex: We should fix that, we should say processor.

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html

Alex: Do we need to say something about this being DTD parsing in the sense of the XML Rec and not other forms of schema validation

Norm: I'll link to the term.
... Are we satisfied that with these changes, assuming we like the editor's choice of words, we've completed our tasks and we're ready to ask the reviewers to look at it again and see if they're satisfied?

Henry: Yes

<scribe> ACTION: Norm to implement the changes proposed and send them to the WG for review in time for next week's meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-xproc-minutes.html#action03]

Norm: Any other discussion of processor profiles this week?
... None heard

Review of binary proposals

Alex: Could we step back and have a broader discussion

Henry: I thought there was an emerging consensus that we should try for the all-XML approach
... I'd rather frame it that way

Vojtech: I'm willing to try the all XML way first if we can manage it
... What I proposed is allowing non-XML data to flow through the pipeline, but it does have some weird consequences that I'm not that comfortable with; XProc is a an XML processing language, if we can process other kinds of data and maintain the XML flavor, I'm in favor of that.

Alex: I have an email.

The WG reviews -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Oct/0006.html

Alex: It does rely on some sort of resource manager.

Norm: Does it actually rely on special URIs?

Alex: It's up to the implementation.

<jfuller> +1 general gist of conversation

Norm: The question I have is, is there ever any need to distingusih between the XML or the referenced binary?

Alex: It does mean more works for our steps.

Norm: So you can't ever post the XML

Alex: Or you have an extra bit of markup that says which to do.
... You might want, with a data URI for example, to be able to save the XML or save the binary

Norm: Let's try some email discussion to see if we can decide if we need to make this distinction and if we do, how we might do it cleanly.

Any other business?

Norm: We were going to talk about the XProcathon, but let's wait for Jim next week or do it in email

Adjourned.