XProc Minutes 8 Oct 2014

See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes

[1]W3C

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 252, 08 Oct 2014

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Norm, Jim, Loren, Alex, Vojtech

   Regrets

   Chair
           Norm

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: 15 Oct 2014
         4. [8]Disposition of action items
         5. [9]Issue #62, 2.5.1 Specify types of variables, options, and
            parameters.
         6. [10]Issue #38, 2.7.5 Syntax: allow p:inline to be optional.
         7. [11]Issue #53, 3.9 Consider dividing the specification.
         8. [12]Issue #37, 2.7.4 Syntax: allow <p:input port="portname"/>
         9. [13]2.1 Simplify parameters
        10. [14]Any other business?

     * [15]Summary of Action Items

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Accept this agenda?

   -> [16]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-agenda

   Accepted.

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [17]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/01-minutes

   Accepted.

  Next meeting: 15 Oct 2014

   No regrets heard.

  Disposition of action items

   Norm runs through the resolutions.

   Norm: Anyone have questions, comments, or concerns about the errata or the
   disposition of those actions?

   None heard.

  Issue #62, 2.5.1 Specify types of variables, options, and parameters. See
  proposal.

   -> [18]https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/62

   -> [19]https://ndw.github.io/specification/langspec/var-types/head/

   Alex: I see the 'as' attributes in the syntax.

   ->
   [20]https://ndw.github.io/specification/langspec/var-types/head/diff.html

   Alex: We've never laid out the context for this very well.

   Norm: Fair enough.
   ... I've created issue 80 to track this.

   Jim: Are we planning to throw an error if the types don't match?

   Norm: Yes.

   Norm: Any further discussion?
   ... I propose to accept the var-types proposal. Any objections?

   <jfuller> +1

   None heard.

  Issue #38, 2.7.5 Syntax: allow p:inline to be optional See pull request #77.

   -> [21]https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/38

   -> [22]https://github.com/xproc/specification/pull/77

   ->
   [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Oct/0000.html

   Jim: Basically, things have moved on a little since that email.

   Norm: How about I leave this on the agenda for a week. I'll help get the
   toolchain setup so that we can review the changed spec.

  Issue #53, 3.9 Consider dividing the specification.

   -> [24]https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/53

   Norm: Everytime we talk about this we waffle a bit. Last time we talked
   about splitting, Liam was concerned. But since he never turns up for our
   calls...

   Alex: What would we do, exactly?
   ... There could be a language specification and a second spec with a
   vocabulary of steps.
   ... It requires people to look at multiple specs, but that's hardly
   uncommon.

   Norm: Yep.

   Alex: You could imagine a pipeline implementation that came with no steps.
   Just your own custom steps.

   Norm: One motivation for a separate spec for the vocabulary is so that it
   can be revised on a different schedule.

   Alex: There's lots of stuff we could do tactically if we had a separate
   spec.

   Norm: Is there anyone opposed to separate specs?

   None heard.

   Norm: Shall we split the XProc 2.0 spec into two specifications: a core
   language specification and a step vocabulary specification?
   ... Anyone in favor?

   Jim: I think it's a good idea.

   Norm: Any objections.

   <alexmilowski> +1

   None heard.

   Norm: Ok, I'll take a stab at it.

  Issue #37, 2.7.4 Syntax: allow <p:input port="portname"/>

   -> [25]https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/37

   <scribe> ACTION: A-252-01 Norm to see if the WG mailing list can be
   subscribe to the github issue tracker. [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2014/10/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

   Some discussion of the problems associated with our new github-based tool
   chain.

   Jim and Vojtech argue that this change is confusing wrt the default
   readable port.

   Vojtech: I also think it conflicts with the input declaration.
   ... I like the idea of a pipe attribute, which is similar to the
   suggestion that we allow an href attribute on p:input.

   Alex: There are two separate things going on, the shortcut for empty and
   the idea of a shorthand for referencing other things.
   ... On the empty side, I wonder how much this has to do with parameters.
   ... That's where I've used it a lot and I don't know where else I've used
   it.
   ... The shorthand to refer to other things is a different usability
   question.

   Norm: I think I'm hearing consensus *not* to make the change proposed in
   issue #37.
   ... Anyone disagree?
   ... I propose that we reject this request.
   ... Any disagreement?

   None heard.

  2.1 Simplify parameters

   ->[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Oct/0016.html

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask about 2.7.8, and other similar bits of the
   spec

   Henry: The new 2.7.8 is p:make-map()
   ... I don't think "markup errors are ignored" is acceptable.
   ... It occurs to me that we need to perhaps be more explicit about this.
   We might need to think about giving a general purpose option between
   strict and lax.
   ... Where what I have in mind is that the default behavior is we'll ignore
   individual parameter bindings that we can't make sense of but if we can
   find ones we can make sense of we'll use those.
   ... I think we have to be clear that it has to be a document.
   ... If it's not clear how to make sense of it, you have to halt and catch
   fire. And there should be an option to specify that behavior if the
   document isn't valid.
   ... I wonder if there are other things like this that we need to treat in
   a more-or-less uniform manner.

   <ht> By 'like this', I mean little XML languages in the c: namespace

  Any other business?

   None heard.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to see if the WG mailing list can be subscribe to the
   github issue tracker. [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2014/10/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
    
   [End of minutes]

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [29]scribe.perl version 1.138 ([30]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2014-10-08 15:26:15 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2014/10/08-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes#item04b
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes#item05
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes#item06
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes#item07
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes#item08
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes#item09
  15. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes#ActionSummary
  16. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-agenda
  17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/01-minutes
  18. https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/62
  19. https://ndw.github.io/specification/langspec/var-types/head/
  20. https://ndw.github.io/specification/langspec/var-types/head/diff.html
  21. https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/38
  22. https://github.com/xproc/specification/pull/77
  23. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Oct/0000.html
  24. https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/53
  25. https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/37
  26. http://www.w3.org/2014/10/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  27. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Oct/0016.html
  28. http://www.w3.org/2014/10/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  29. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  30. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 15:27:43 UTC