Accept this agenda?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/19-agenda

Accepted

Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/12-minutes

Accepted.

Next meeting

Proposed: 26 Nov 2014 does anyone have to give regrets?

No regrets heard.

Review of open action items

Norm asserts completion of A-256-02.

Jim asserts completion of A-257-01.

<scribe> ACTION: Norm to check with Laim about the holiday publishing moritorium [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/19-xproc-minutes.html#action01]

Are we ready for FPWD

Norm: Are we comfortable with the current draft. Is there anything we have to do

Alex: Proof it, give it a careful read through.

<scribe> ACTION: Alex to proof the specs. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/19-xproc-minutes.html#action02]

Norm: There are two sections, AVT and TVT to deal with.

Jim's proposal to make p:inline optional

<jfuller> https://github.com/xproc/specification/pull/120

<jfuller> http://xquery.github.io/xproc-vnext-spec/langspec/xproc20/head/xproc20/diff.html

Jim outlines his changes.

Norm observes that Section 5.1 still refers to plural elements; Jim agrees it's an oversight. Fixes.

<jfuller> https://github.com/xquery/xproc-vnext-spec/commit/d2bf246114419dc9ab85322214b2f60dd11dfb12

Vojtech wonders if we want to have a different pattern name for anyElement|p:inline+

Norm suggests it's probably ok this way; if we had a different pattern we'd have to explain it somewhere.

Proposed: With the plural change, accept this pull request.

Accepted.

<jfuller> thx folks

Norm's attempt to update try/catch

-> https://ndw.github.io/specification/langspec/try-catch/head/xproc20/diff.html#p.try

Norm outlines his proposal.

Norm thinks code should probably be QName+

Vojtech: At the moment catch is required. What if it was optional.
... You could use the finally block as described.

Norm: I considered it, but didn't. We could do that later.
... I'll add that to the ednote for p:finally

Proposal: With those two changes, shall we accept this change?

Accepted.

Norm's attempt to address Vojtech's comments

-> https://ndw.github.io/specification/langspec/spec-comments/head/xproc20/diff.html

Vojtech: I think the change in 2.3 is incorrect; readable port isn't right, it's also p:inline, etc.
... I thought there was a term for "data sources".

Norm: I'm happy to change that to "in combination with other data sources".
... We should also add a definition for data source if we're going to use it.

Vojtech: Do we say anything about what is a valid content type.

Alex: That's a slippery slope. It may be that text/* isn't useful, but it could be.

Norm: I'll add an issue to track what decide about valid content types.

-> https://ndw.github.io/specification/

Proposal: Accept these changes.

Accepted.

Any other business

Alex: We need to get Liam involved to get the FPWD out.

Norm: Yes, I'll take care of that.

<jfuller> https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/109

Jim: I'd like to make sure we talk about this again.
... I wonder if there's some defaulting behavior that can satisfy some of these cases.

Adjourned.