15:06:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ixml
15:06:48 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/01/25-ixml-irc
15:06:50 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:06:52 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Steven
15:07:19 <Steven> Meeting: ixml meeting
15:07:37 <Steven> Date: 25 January 2022
15:17:07 <Steven> zakim, this is ixml
15:17:07 <Zakim> got it, Steven
15:17:29 <Steven> zakim, save this conference description
15:17:32 <Zakim> this conference description has been saved, Steven
15:17:41 <Steven> Zakim, which conference is this?
15:17:41 <Zakim> I have been told this is ixml
15:19:01 <Steven> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ixml/2022Jan/0140
15:21:46 <john> john has joined #ixml
15:23:29 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
15:23:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/25-ixml-minutes.html Steven
15:23:34 <Steven> Chair: Steven
15:26:34 <dpawson> dpawson has joined #ixml
15:27:43 <norm> norm has joined #ixml
15:27:50 <Steven> Present: Norm, John, Dave, Steven
15:30:22 <Steven> Present+Bethan
15:30:28 <Steven> Present+Michael
15:31:09 <Steven> Present+Tomos
15:31:44 <Steven> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ixml/2022Jan/0140.html
15:31:50 <tovey-walsh> tovey-walsh has joined #ixml
15:31:55 <Steven> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ixml/2022Jan/0140.html
15:32:04 <Steven> ACTION (2021-10-001): Steven to draft a mediatypes proposal (see
15:32:04 <Steven> https://github.com/invisibleXML/ixml/issues/6).  (Pending discussion.)
15:32:04 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
15:32:13 <Steven> Steven: An agenda item today
15:32:23 <Steven> ACTION (2022-01-002): Steven to make empty visible in ixml grammar
15:32:23 <Steven> https://github.com/invisibleXML/ixml/issues/22).
15:32:23 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
15:32:35 <Steven> Steven: Done and closed
15:32:48 <Tom> Tom has joined #ixml
15:32:51 <Steven> ACTION (2022-01-003): Steven to remove dstring/sstring differentiation
15:32:51 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
15:32:51 <Steven> from grammar.
15:32:57 <Steven> Done and closed
15:33:22 <Steven> ACTION (2022-01-004): Steven to commit new draft spec.
15:33:22 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
15:33:34 <Steven> Steven: Done (three of four times)
15:34:00 <Steven> trackbot, leave
15:34:00 <trackbot> trackbot has left #ixml
15:34:44 <Steven> Topic:  Pragmas proposal
15:35:23 <Steven> Norm: Syntax
15:35:59 <Steven> ... a contingent wants syntax distinct to comments, and some think that they are a flavour of comment
15:36:53 <Steven> Steven: I feel pragmas are a form of comment
15:37:28 <Steven> Norm: I like them having a different syntax
15:37:42 <Steven> Dave: I don''t see them as related to comments at all.
15:37:47 <norm> They aren't comments and a pre-processor that discarded comments shouldn't discard them, for example.
15:38:18 <Steven> Steven: I think if there are people who don;t see them as comments, then we don;t agree on what pragmas are.
15:38:22 <Steven> s/;/'/
15:38:28 <Steven> s/;/'/
15:39:59 <Steven> Tomos: My prefernce is for them not to be comments. A pragma is an instruction that may be ignored, but it defines some data that a processor can understand and act on. We are being deliberate in not defining what pragmas do.
15:40:08 <Steven> Steven: I disagree.
15:40:15 <Steven> ... with that last sentence.
15:40:51 <Steven> Bethan: The distinction is that a comment is purely meant to be human readable, and pragmas are the opposite.
15:42:18 <Steven> Tomos: As comments, a non pragma processor has to do nothing.
15:42:51 <Steven> ... But then we have no control on the structure of pragmas.
15:42:57 <Steven> Steven: Disagree.
15:43:36 <Steven> Michael: Steven's strawman shows that you can define internal structure.
15:43:47 <Steven> ... I believe they need to be distinct.
15:44:26 <Steven> ... if we want them to be lightweight, insisting that they have a distinct delimiter, and I want a single character
15:45:45 <Steven> John: If you are the processor and you are handling pragmas., you need to see if you understand that pragma, then I parse it consequently, and then can then act on it, wherever in the tree it is.
15:46:00 <Steven> ... the question seems to be if that is lightweight enough.
15:46:07 <Steven> Dave: I disagree.
15:46:23 <Steven> ... Pragmas may affect the input ixml, or the grammar.
15:47:22 <Steven> John: The pragma could do a tree rewrite. I have taken in the ixml which I look at and find a comment at the appropriate point.
15:47:52 <Steven> ... and then I can do some rewriting.
15:49:16 <Steven> Steven: My strawman shows that you still get the tree you want.
15:50:13 <Steven> Michael: I parse and get the tree. If there are pragmas, and they indicate that there are other things I should do, which may involve modifying the internal representation of the grammar.
15:51:18 <Steven> ... I think of pragmas as a form of annotation.
15:51:48 <Steven> Norm: Whatever syntax we use, it is possible to see them during parsing.
15:52:13 <Steven> John: javascript...
15:52:30 <Steven> Norm: No! They messed it up. We want to do it right.
15:52:48 <Steven> ... we need to decide on syntax.
15:53:06 <Steven> Michael: To answer your question, is yes if we agree.
15:53:43 <Steven> Dave: We had a good argument last week, on why they are important for the first release.
15:53:58 <Steven> Bethan: Let's stick to the syntax of pragmas.
15:55:05 <Steven> Tomos: The root of the problem is whether pragmas are comments or not.
15:56:06 <Steven> Norm: There are 3 different categories here: 1. Pragma is (<cha> 2. "[" starts a pragma 3. Other pair of characters.
15:56:34 <Steven> Steven: Should pragmas be nestable?
15:56:48 <Steven> Michael: Delicate.
15:56:54 <Steven> ... yes and no
15:57:31 <Steven> ... if we have a delimeter pair, then they should next
15:57:53 <Steven> ... I assume that we have use cases of nested pragmas.
15:58:16 <Steven> ... On the other hand it is a technical error to have recursive pargmas in the grammar.
15:58:24 <Steven> s/parg/prag/
15:59:06 <Steven> ... there is no guarantee that the syntax for pragmas will use the pragma symbols for pragmas.
16:00:04 <Steven> ... I don't want comments and pragmas to be recognised by the ixml parser within pragmas.
16:01:05 <Steven> Bethan: if we have a syntax, we can at least discuss them.
16:01:38 <Steven> ...  I think that while whatever symbols we use to start and end a pragma, they should mark a pragma in th a pragma.
16:01:49 <Steven> ... is what Michael said
16:02:47 <Steven> Michael: In Steven's strawman pragma rewrites, means that when I parse a pragma, I have to look inside, to see what it is.
16:02:56 <Steven> ... so the content is not unconstrained.
16:03:24 <Steven> ... I think the prose in his strawman is right, but the grammar not.
16:04:05 <Steven> ... In our alternative is to define pragma as containing strings containing pairs of left delim right delim and other stuff.
16:04:16 <Steven> ... but these are not nonterminals.
16:04:58 <Steven> ... I can match the close delim, because I can match the contained pairs
16:06:17 <Steven> Steven: That's not an argument against my strawman. I was only trying to show you can use comment symbols for pragmas.
16:06:40 <Steven> Norm: Back to where we were, modulo of nesting.
16:07:21 <Steven> Michael: Steven is opposed to square brackets. I am happy to drop that as syntax.
16:07:43 <Steven> Norm: That simplifies it!
16:08:09 <Steven> Dave: Also drop the comment as pragma delimiter
16:09:49 <Steven> Michael: I think Steven has explained the advantage of having strings with {} and nested as a class and using them as pragmas, but do you see a problem with using other characters?
16:11:22 <Steven> Michael I want the start and end to be symmetric.
16:11:32 <Steven> s/Michael/Michael:/
16:12:43 <Steven> Bethan: If I am a processor, and I see a comment and I ignore it.
16:13:51 <Steven> ... I f I as a human write my fgrammar, and a pragma, consists of a { and a character, if I omit the character, the processor thinks it has a comment. A pragma with a different character gives an error.
16:14:04 <Steven> s/I f/If/
16:14:37 <Steven> Steven: You'll see you didn't get the result you wanted.
16:14:47 <Steven> Bethan: That's debugging.
16:15:26 <Steven> ... so I think a different character is better
16:15:39 <Steven> Tomos: You believe that pragmas are comments
16:16:03 <Steven> ... that's the same as Brexit is Brexit.
16:16:32 <Steven> ... A comment is prose for humans.
16:20:37 <dpawson> SP: Semantics of pragmas is zero.
16:20:38 <dpawson> TH: Pragmas are comments - I struggle with this. Why are they the same. I see comments for people, pragmas for processor.
16:20:38 <dpawson> TH: Why can't we distinguish them?
16:20:38 <dpawson> SP: I see I'm in a minority.
16:20:39 <dpawson> TH: What is belief or with supporting reasoning.
16:20:39 <dpawson> SP: Why a different character / delim.
16:20:41 <dpawson> TH: Have to ignore a comment, why not others
16:20:43 <dpawson> MSM: They will do something diff, comment to pragma.
16:21:18 <Steven> Bethan: Some of us believe that comments are for humans, and pragmas for processor.
16:21:34 <Steven> Steven: I don;t accept that distinction.
16:21:38 <Steven> s/;/'/
16:22:39 <Steven> John: When I made remarks about other languages that screws things up
16:23:41 <Steven> Norm: I'm a tiny bit in agreement with Steven's remark that processors that want to ignore pragmas can do that.
16:24:03 <Steven> ... if the syntax is as comments.
16:24:37 <Steven> Norm: I propose that we discuss next week what pragmas are for,.
16:24:56 <Steven> Steven: I agree that that is an underlying problem.
16:25:21 <Steven> Norm: See my issue on github
16:25:37 <Steven> Tomos: That needs to take into account our usecases.
16:25:46 <Steven> ... Can I propose a change
16:25:56 <Steven> ... Dave could you minute it next week.
16:26:04 <Steven> Dave: Agree.
16:26:29 <Steven> ... Can you put links on to the list for the issue and proposal that we need to look at.
16:26:49 <norm> The issue I mentioned is, https://github.com/invisibleXML/ixml/issues/29
16:27:04 <Steven> Bethan: I pragmas like processing instructions?
16:27:16 <Steven> s/I /Are /
16:27:44 <Steven> Michael: ixml can't generate processing instructions.
16:27:52 <Steven> ... we want to add that
16:28:10 <Steven> ... I am happy with comment elements.
16:30:26 <Steven> [ADJOURN]
16:30:33 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
16:30:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/25-ixml-minutes.html Steven
16:30:47 <dpawson> SP: Can forward my notes if you can make use of them.
16:32:56 <Steven> i/ACTION (2021-10-001): Steven to draft a mediatypes proposal/Topic: Action items/
16:33:01 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
16:33:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/25-ixml-minutes.html Steven
16:40:48 <dpawson> dpawson has left #ixml
17:34:53 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ixml