See also: IRC log
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/15-agenda
Accepted?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/10/08-minutes
Accepted.
No regrets heard.
Norm: No telcon on the 29th, we'll have f2f meetings on the 27th/28th at TPAC
Norm: I'll attempt to setup some sort of telepresence on both days at 11:00a CDT (09:00a PDT, 16:00GMT)
Norm mutters about the value of another f2f.
Henry and Jim both offer to host.
Norm: I don't think we have to plan further now, but let's start imagining we might meet in Europe in the summer.
Norm: With respect to A-252-01,
I've made some progress. Commit msgs now appear on the comments
list. It appears not to be possible to have issues go to the
comments list directly.
... However, I have procmail.
<scribe> Continued. Norm will get to it asap.
-> https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/28
-> https://ndw.github.io/specification/langspec/no-param-ports/head/
Norm summarizes the changes from last week.
Henry: It's all fine. But I'd
like to get some more housekeeping out of the way.
... The description of c:param and c:param-set are in conflict
with this work.
... Similarly, the descriptions of c:param-set and c:param
refer to "parameter inputs" which no longer exist.
... I think we ought to say something about the mapping of
command line input parameters to a parameter map and a
recommended way of doing that.
Norm: Yes, I think we should say that.
Vojtech: Isn't this covered by options?
Norm: Yes, of course, parameters are just options now.
Vojtech: How you pass the map is implementation defined.
Henry: We need to call out the fact that implementations may or may not support some types from the command line.
Some discussion of how processors might do this.
<jfuller> read it, Henry already covered off .. +1 for accepting pursuant to added story on binding
Vojtech: There's no story about magic binding yet, right?
Norm: Right.
Vojtech: What about backwards compatibility or upgrading.
Norm: We have an issue for that, suggest we revisit when we've made more progress on V2.
Norm proposes to adopt the no-param-ports draft as the status quo.
Any objections?
None heard. So resolved.
<jfuller> +1 for adoption with the mentioned proviso
<jfuller> could you add for next week review, https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/38 as I published (and will be republishing well before our next meeting)
Yes, apologies, jfuller. An oversight on my part.
Adjourned.