14:02:38 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:02:38 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/08-xproc-irc 14:02:40 zakim, this is xproc 14:02:40 ok, Norm; that matches XML_PMWG()10:00AM 14:02:44 zakim, who's here? 14:02:44 On the phone I see [IPcaller], Loren_Cahlander, Alex_Milows, Norm 14:02:46 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, alexmilowski, Vojtech, lcahlander, Norm, jfuller, liam 14:03:01 zakim, [ip is jfuller 14:03:01 +jfuller; got it 14:03:15 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 14:03:15 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 14:03:15 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-agenda 14:03:15 Date: 08 Oct 2014 14:03:15 Meeting: 252 14:03:15 Chair: Norm 14:03:17 Scribe: Norm 14:03:19 ScribeNick: Norm 14:03:21 +Vojtech 14:03:47 zakim, who's here 14:03:48 Norm, you need to end that query with '?' 14:03:51 zakim, who's here? 14:03:53 On the phone I see jfuller, Loren_Cahlander, Alex_Milows, Norm, Vojtech 14:03:53 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, alexmilowski, Vojtech, lcahlander, Norm, jfuller, liam 14:04:09 Present: Norm, Jim, Loren, Alex, Vojtech 14:05:01 Topic: Accept this agenda? 14:05:01 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-agenda 14:05:09 Accepted. 14:05:12 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 14:05:12 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/01-minutes 14:05:16 Accepted. 14:05:28 Topic: Next meeting: 15 Oct 2014 14:05:38 ht has joined #xproc 14:05:40 No regrets heard. 14:09:10 Topic: Disposition of action items 14:09:18 YEHAAA 14:10:15 +??P0 14:10:22 zakim, ??P0 is ht 14:10:22 +ht; got it 14:14:34 Go on, my son! 14:14:43 Norm: Anyone have questions, comments, or concerns about the errata or the disposition of those actions? 14:14:44 None heard. 14:14:59 Issue #62, 2.5.1 Specify types of variables, options, and parameters. See proposal. 14:15:09 -> https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/62 14:15:11 -> https://ndw.github.io/specification/langspec/var-types/head/ 14:17:13 Alex: I see the 'as' attributes in the syntax. 14:17:21 No diff highlighting?? 14:18:09 Diff highlighting: follow the link. 14:18:09 -> https://ndw.github.io/specification/langspec/var-types/head/diff.html 14:18:51 D'oh, sorry 14:19:20 Alex: We've never laid out the context for this very well. 14:19:24 Norm: Fair enough. 14:21:24 Norm: I've created issue 80 to track this. 14:21:28 Alex: No. 14:22:28 Jim: Are we planning to throw an error if the types don't match? 14:22:30 Norm: Yes. 14:24:33 http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/ 14:24:36 section 2.9 14:25:26 [Definition: Certain errors are classified as type errors. A type error occurs when the value supplied as input to an operation is of the wrong type for that operation, for example when an integer is supplied to an operation that expects a node.] If a type error occurs in an instruction that is actually evaluated, then it must be signaled in the same way as a non-recoverable dynamic error. Alternatively, an implementation may signal a type error during the analys 14:25:26 is phase in the same way as a static error, even if it occurs in part of the stylesheet that is never evaluated, provided it can establish that execution of a particular construct would never succeed. 14:26:37 Norm: Any further discussion? 14:26:38 None heard 14:26:42 s/None heard// 14:28:09 Norm: I propose to accept the var-types proposal. Any objections? 14:28:15 +1 14:28:17 None heard. 14:28:27 Topic: Issue #38, 2.7.5 Syntax: allow p:inline to be optional See pull request #77. 14:28:34 -> https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/38 14:28:38 -> https://github.com/xproc/specification/pull/77 14:30:42 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Oct/0000.html 14:31:30 Jim: Basically, things have moved on a little since that email. 14:33:15 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. 14:33:59 Topic: Issue #53, 3.9 Consider dividing the specification. 14:34:09 -> https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/53 14:34:55 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... 14:35:09 Alex: What would we do, exactly? 14:35:21 ...There could be a language specification and a second spec with a vocabulary of steps. 14:35:35 ...It requires people to look at multiple specs, but that's hardly uncommon. 14:35:48 Norm: Yep. 14:36:00 Alex: You could imagine a pipeline implementation that came with no steps. Just your own custom steps. 14:36:48 Norm: One motivation for a separate spec for the vocabulary is so that it can be revised on a different schedule. 14:37:09 Alex: There's lots of stuff we could do tactically if we had a separate spec. 14:37:24 Norm: Is there anyone opposed to separate specs? 14:37:26 None heard. 14:37:59 Norm: Shall we split the XProc 2.0 spec into two specifications: a core language specification and a step vocabulary specification? 14:38:19 Norm: Anyone in favor? 14:38:45 Jim: I think it's a good idea. 14:38:47 Norm: Any objections. 14:38:50 +1 14:38:57 None heard. 14:39:02 Norm: Ok, I'll take a stab at it. 14:39:23 Topic: Issue #37, 2.7.4 Syntax: allow 14:39:29 -> https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/37 14:39:54 ACTION: Norm to see if the WG mailing list can be subscribe to the github issue tracker. 14:42:45 Some discussion of the problems associated with our new github-based tool chain. 14:45:46 Jim and Vojtech argue that this change is confusing wrt the default readable port. 14:46:10 Vojtech: I also think it conflicts with the input declaration. 14:47:09 ...I like the idea of a pipe attribute, which is similar to the suggestion that we allow an href attribute on p:input. 14:47:38 Alex: There are two separate things going on, the shortcut for empty and the idea of a shorthand for referencing other things. 14:47:52 ...On the empty side, I wonder how much this has to do with parameters. 14:48:16 ...That's where I've used it a lot and I don't know where else I've used it. 14:48:26 ...The shorthand to refer to other things is a different usability question. 14:49:09 Norm: I think I'm hearing consensus *not* to make the change proposed in issue #37. 14:49:23 Norm: Anyone disagree? 14:50:22 Norm: I propose that we reject this request. 14:52:48 Norm: Any disagreement? 14:52:49 None heard. 14:53:32 Topic: 2.1 Simplify parameters 14:53:33 q+ to ask about 2.7.8, and other similar bits of the spec 14:53:43 ->http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Oct/0016.html 14:53:55 ack ht 14:53:57 ht, you wanted to ask about 2.7.8, and other similar bits of the spec 14:54:53 Henry: The new 2.7.8 is p:make-map() 14:55:23 Henry: I don't think "markup errors are ignored" is acceptable. 14:55:57 ...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. 14:56:23 ...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. 14:56:56 ...I think we have to be clear that it has to be a document. 14:57:21 ...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. 14:58:09 Henry: I wonder if there are other things like this that we need to treat in a more-or-less uniform manner. 14:58:34 By 'like this', I mean little XML languages in the c: namespace 14:58:51 Topic: Any other business? 14:58:58 None heard. 14:59:08 -Loren_Cahlander 14:59:09 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 14:59:10 -Vojtech 14:59:18 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:59:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/08-xproc-minutes.html Norm 14:59:25 -jfuller 14:59:37 -Norm 15:01:50 -ht 15:01:54 -Alex_Milows 15:01:55 XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended 15:01:55 Attendees were [IPcaller], Loren_Cahlander, Alex_Milows, Norm, jfuller, Vojtech, ht