Accept this agenda?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/08/20-agenda

Accepted.

Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/07/02-minutes

Accepted.

Next meeting: 27 Aug 2014

Jim gives probably regrets.

We got rechartered!

<jfuller> YEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAA

Norm: We're rechartered, y'all get to rejoin and welcome Loren.

Test suite at github

-> 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.

Issue #7

-> 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.

Issue #10

-> 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

Spec updates?

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.

Zip/Unzip steps

Norm: No progress, I assume.

Bug reports

Norm: I've done a little drafting but haven't got anything ready yet
... I will try to have that ready next week.

Any other business?

None heard, we are adjourned.