See also: IRC log
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/08/20-agenda
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/07/02-minutes
Accepted.
Jim gives probably regrets.
<jfuller> YEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAA
Norm: We're rechartered, y'all get to rejoin and welcome Loren.
-> https://github.com/xproc/test-suite
Norm explains the background: tests on github but for process reasons the test suite still runs from tests.xproc.org
Jim: Do we plan a different branch for v2.
Norm: I should have said the repo defaluts to the branch xproc10
Jim: I'm not sure how we're going to deal with backwards incompatibilities. I'm not sure we've enumerated them all.
Norm: I don't think we have, I don't think we know all the differences.
Alex: What are we going to do with a 2.0 processor that includes a 1.0 pipeline.
Norm: I think we'll have to
consider the difference in semantics.
... It would be best if 1.0 pipelines would silently work most
of the time.
Jim: When we work out what the backwards incompatabilities are, we'll have to document them.
-> https://github.com/xproc/test-suite/pull/6
Norm: All I did was patch the result so that it would be consistent. Anyone object to this change?
<jfuller> +1 to that change, looks reasonable
Accepted.
-> https://github.com/xproc/test-suite/pull/7
Norm: This one fixes quoted charsets.
<alexmilowski> FYI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_URI_scheme
<alexmilowski> file://host/path
<jfuller> FWIW - I am equally fine with both
Norm: I'll do a little investigation.
Investigation reveals that RFC 2616 defines a parameter as either a token or a quoted string.
Norm: Ok. Quoted strings are allowed, I suppose it follows that we shouldn't change the test.
Alex: We should minute the reference to RFC 2616 so we don't have to do this exercise again.
Norm: I believe you just did.
-> https://github.com/xproc/test-suite/issues/10
-> https://github.com/xproc/test-suite/blob/xproc10/tests/optional/psvi-required-001.xml
Norm: I think the comment is correct.
Jim: Is there spec work required?
Norm: No, the spec is clear the
test is just inadequate.
... I propose we add psvi-required to the test. An
implementation that supports PSVI will continue to work and an
impl that doesn't will fail differently, but more reliably.
Alex: I think we need to consider whether or not 'psvi-required' is a good term. No one knows about it anymore, it's all handled by whether or not you validate.
Norm: Any objections to the
change?
... None heard
Norm: Alex, have you made any progress on your parameters task?
Alex: No, and it won't happen
until mid-September at least. I don't think it'll take long,
I'm just going to take a chainsaw to the spec.
... I suggest we just merge that one without review; it's
moving deck chairs not making substantive changes.
Norm: Yes, that makes sense.
Norm: No progress, I assume.
Norm: I've done a little drafting
but haven't got anything ready yet
... I will try to have that ready next week.
None heard, we are adjourned.