See also: IRC log
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/08-agenda
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2009/10/01-minutes
Accepted.
Henry gives regrets for 8 Oct
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/cr-comments/
Vojtech: I wonder if err:XS0005 is clear in the case of compound steps.
Some discussion.
Norm: Unless there's a specific suggestion for how to improve the description of err:XS0005, I'm inclined to leave it.
No dissent heard.
Norm: I propose that that closes issue 163
Accepted.
Norm explains what he did wrt replacing "binding" with "connection".
Vojtech: I think it's an improvement.
Henry: I'm in favor of the change
without having looked at it.
... It makes sense and I trust you to have gotten it nearly
right, so I'm not fussed.
Norm: Is there anyone who wants more time?
None heard.
Norm: I propose that we adopt the alternate wording as the new status quo.
Accepted.
Vojtech: With this change, I think we should update the schemas and DTDs.
Norm: yes.
Henry: I'll fix the schemas
Norm: I'll fix the RELAX NG.
Norm summarizes.
Henry: How likely is it that
people are going to try to do this?
... If it's something that's going to happen a lot is going to
be compromised to allow something that isn't going to happen a
lot then I'm opposed.
... It seems to me that most of the benefit of what you just
said would be to simply change the error from static to
dynamic.
Norm: The wrinkle is you only get one declaration.
Vojtech: How would this influence the V1 pipelines. Suppose I have a V1 step and I simply use p:identity and I intentionally refer to an output port called foo.
Norm: That would still be an error.
Vojtech: If we decide to introduce some changes, this is something we can test.
Alex: Your saying it would be a
dynamic error to evaluate a step that contains unknown children
or attributes.
... But your saying unknown inputs/outputs have a well-defined
behavior.
Norm: Explains his rationale again, about the fact that there's only one declaratin.
Alex: That's a value judgement about how important the output is. In that case, it would be nice to know that the output was non-critical.
Henry: Add into the mix the fact
that we have a story about what you're allowed to do without
changing the name of the step.
... I think Alex's observation is correct that someone may
refactor the structure of a step so that the fundamental output
is split across two ports.
... The correct answer there is that we have to extend our
notion of what amounts to a category of backwards compatible
changes.
... At the moment it only contains optional options, but we
could extend it to include collateral inputs and outputs.
... So if you're going to make a non-benign change, you must
use a new step name.
Norm: Yes, I think that would help.
Henry: I think it's the usual story, Norm you should write up an editor's draft for us to review.
Norm: I'm tempted to delay publication of our interim CR draft by at least a week so that we can resolve this.
Alex: I'd prefer to resolve this first.
<alexmilowski> (sorry, I have to go. I have an appointment at 9am.)
Vojtech: There's the related question of what is the default version.
Norm: I think if you don't import a library, you get what the processor does.
More discussion about what to do with input/output ports
Norm: I'm happy to make it a dynamic error to attempt to read from the port in the V1 case, it just looks like more work.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to promote the alternate text draft to the status quo. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to produce an alternate draft with the proposed versioning changes. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
Norm: I will be going to
TPAC.
... Welcome back Vojtech!
Adjourned.