IRC log of xproc on 2006-01-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:26:28 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:26:28 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:30:02 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
15:30:16 [Norm]
zakim, this will be xproc
15:30:16 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 30 minutes
15:30:22 [Norm]
rrsagent, pointer
15:30:22 [RRSAgent]
15:30:58 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:30:58 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:30:58 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:30:58 [Norm]
Date: 26 Jan 2005
15:30:58 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:30:59 [Norm]
15:31:12 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: XProc:
15:31:30 [Norm]
Yes. This week.
15:31:52 [Norm]
I'm on vacation 2 Feb *and* 9 Feb, however
15:32:09 [Norm]
Bad timing really, but I need to lie on the beach for 10 days so there :-)
15:33:34 [Norm]
zakim, agenda+ Administrivia
15:33:34 [Zakim]
agendum 1 added
15:33:41 [Norm]
zakim, agenda+ Technical: Requirements document
15:33:41 [Zakim]
agendum 2 added
15:34:29 [Norm]
zakim, agenda+ Any other business
15:34:29 [Zakim]
agendum 3 added
15:34:50 [MSM]
something is going to give, not clear what.
15:34:55 [MSM]
i may be late, apologies if so
15:55:05 [rlopes]
rlopes has joined #xproc
15:57:15 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:57:22 [Zakim]
15:58:25 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:58:38 [Zakim]
15:58:46 [Norm]
zakim, ??P1 is rlopes
15:58:46 [Zakim]
+rlopes; got it
15:59:17 [Zakim]
15:59:19 [ebruchez]
ebruchez has joined #xproc
16:01:14 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:01:14 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:01:15 [Zakim]
16:01:19 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
16:01:55 [Zakim]
16:02:04 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:02:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see rlopes, Norm, Alex_Milowski, Ht, PGrosso
16:02:36 [Zakim]
+ +1.519.538.aaaa
16:02:48 [Norm]
zakim, aaaa is Murray
16:02:48 [Zakim]
+Murray; got it
16:03:07 [Zakim]
16:03:33 [Norm]
zakim, ??P44 is ebruchez
16:03:33 [Zakim]
+ebruchez; got it
16:04:05 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:04:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see rlopes, Norm, Alex_Milowski, Ht, PGrosso, Murray, ebruchez
16:07:14 [Norm]
Present: Rui, Norm, Alex, Henry, Paul, Murray, Erik
16:07:19 [Norm]
Regrets: Andrew, Jeni
16:07:36 [Norm]
zakim, next agendum
16:07:36 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Administrivia" taken up [from Norm]
16:07:38 [ht]
s/Regrets:/Regrets: Richard, /
16:07:48 [Norm]
Topic: accept this agenda?
16:07:48 [Norm]
16:07:56 [Norm]
16:07:58 [Norm]
Topic: accept minutes from the previous teleconference?
16:07:58 [Norm]
16:08:06 [Norm]
16:08:11 [Norm]
Topic: next meeting: 2 Feb 2006.
16:08:11 [Norm]
Any regrets?
16:08:19 [Norm]
Norm is on vacation 2 Feb and 9 Feb
16:09:00 [Norm]
Paul to chair 2 Feb and 9 Feb
16:09:18 [Norm]
Topic: Tech Plenary
16:09:18 [Norm]
Registration is now open; discounted rates at the Sofitel end 6 Feb 2006.
16:09:39 [Norm]
Topic: Welcome Murray Malone
16:10:26 [Norm]
zakim, next agendum
16:10:34 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Technical: Requirements document" taken up [from Norm]
16:12:31 [Norm]
Norm suggests that his review is mostly editorial.
16:12:43 [Norm]
Murray: Reading from a "new user" perspective I found myself getting lost because the definition of terms followed the design principles
16:12:58 [Norm]
Murray: Hopefully we'll have a drawing of the model eventually. That also should probably precede the design principles.
16:13:31 [Norm]
Murray: I'd like to change the order of the design principles; from high-level to lower-level. So there's a progression.
16:14:00 [Norm]
Murray: I felt the same way about the list of requirements; starting with "this is an XML language" and moving through to more technical issues.
16:14:21 [Norm]
Murray: I sent out a bunch of editorial comments today, most are details. A few places where I don't understand.
16:14:23 [ht]
q+ to ask about "component vocabulary"
16:14:41 [Norm]
ack ht
16:14:41 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to ask about "component vocabulary"
16:15:15 [Norm]
Henry: I propose that we delete "component vocabulary" unless and until we need it for something.
16:16:01 [Norm]
Norm: that works for me.
16:16:49 [Norm]
Norm: I proposed to use it in the definition of "Pipeline Document" but I'm happy to not use it.
16:17:14 [Norm]
Alex: In my mind it has a very specific purpose but if we aren't using it I guess it makes sense to remove it.
16:17:43 [Norm]
Alex: I'll remove it.
16:18:29 [Norm]
Alex: From my perspective, I think the purpose of that was to encapsulate the idea that in addition to things that have known vocabularies, there are pipeline steps that need to have their own things that they operate on.
16:19:44 [Norm]
Henry: All I'm suggesting is that we wait until we have a particular instance in front of us to talk about.
16:21:11 [Norm]
Alex: With respect to Norm's comment that we need "pipeline document", that's what I thought "specification language" meant.
16:21:32 [Norm]
Murray: "Pipeline document" sounds like something going through the pipeline. A "pipeline specification document" would work.
16:21:34 [ebruchez]
I aggree.
16:21:53 [ebruchez]
16:22:25 [Norm]
Norm: I thought "specification language" was the description of the elements and attributes that one uses to *write* a pipeline specification document.
16:22:50 [Norm]
Consensus to use "Pipeline Specification Document" instead of "Specification Language"
16:23:06 [Norm]
Murray: What is the name for the thing being operated on?
16:23:40 [Norm]
Murray: Let's say we're talking about a DocBook manual for Awk. How do we refere to that document as it's going through the pipeline.
16:24:08 [Norm]
Henry: I don't know yet. Part of the problem is we're still discussing the right way to conceptualize what's going through the pipeline.
16:24:17 [Norm]
Murray: "Pipeline fodder"?
16:24:40 [Norm]
Alex: I see where you're going. Maybe we should come up with a term for it.
16:25:04 [ht]
q+ to point out there's more than one
16:25:17 [Norm]
Erik: I just wanted to say that "the active thing" seems to imply that there's only one.
16:25:26 [Norm]
Erik: I'm not sure what active means in this case.
16:25:52 [ht]
16:26:12 [ht]
Erik and Norm has covered my point
16:26:20 [ht]
16:26:34 [Norm]
Norm: I don't think of a pipeline as having something flowing through it. Not a single thing, anway.
16:26:38 [Norm]
Murray: Then why call it a pipeline?
16:27:07 [Norm]
Erik: I agree with Norm. I still think we can call it a pipeline because we have stages that are linked together, but it's not like "liquid" flowing through the pipeline.
16:27:18 [Norm]
Murray: It's more like a sausage making machine.
16:27:29 [Norm]
Murray: Perhaps we're talking about source and target documents?
16:27:35 [Norm]
Erik: There may be many.
16:27:49 [ht]
Every steps has inputs and outputs
16:28:00 [ht]
they may be connected in complex way
16:28:16 [Norm]
Murray: For every step in the process there are zero or more inputs and outputs. For now, can we just call them source and target doucments.
16:28:21 [Norm]
Henry: No, I like inputs and outputs.
16:28:33 [Norm]
Henry: I think that's the right terminology.
16:29:22 [Norm]
Norm: We already use inputs and outputs in a lot of places. Let's stick with that until (or if) we find we need something else.
16:29:46 [Norm]
Alex: I'll add Input Document and Output Document to the vocabulary section.
16:32:09 [Norm]
Discussion of infoset vs. object model vs. PSVI discussion resumes.
16:33:08 [Norm]
Henry: Murray's point is well taken, we should say something that describes what we mean by infoset.
16:33:34 [ht]
"infoset" is the name we give to any implementation of a data model for XML which supports the [Infoset] vocabulary
16:34:00 [Norm]
Murray: Many of the "technology neutral" requirements would be easier to understand if we made this clear up front.
16:34:46 [Norm]
Murray: The design principle "technology neutral" seems to be two parts: the technology wrt infosets and object models and there seems to be platform neutrality.
16:35:57 [Norm]
Norm points out we also have 4.11
16:36:09 [Norm]
Murray: then it looks like we have three flavors
16:37:52 [Norm]
General discussion of how to factor the design principles/requirements
16:39:26 [Norm]
Murray: 4.14 is a design principle. A requirement falls out of that. What I'm saying is that there are really high-level principles, platform neutrality, language neutrality, vendor neutrality, etc. Requirements fall out of some of these.
16:40:22 [Norm]
Murray: A lot of the requirements that are longer than one sentence include a design principle that needs to be pulled to the top.
16:40:39 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
16:41:09 [Norm]
Murray: Consider 4.10. There's a design principle there, this language should be able to work with all existing XML technologies and be prepared to deal with new ones
16:42:26 [Norm]
Norm concurs if for no other reason than because it will make the technical requirements crisper
16:43:40 [Norm]
Alex: Consider 4.1
16:43:49 [Norm]
Murray: Software allows you to specify inputs and outputs.
16:44:20 [Norm]
Murray: Something about familiar software paradigms. 4.3 and 4.4 seem to fit in there too
16:45:50 [Norm]
Alex: Maybe this rolls back to a design requirment like "we have control over the flow of documents and their processing"
16:46:41 [Norm]
Murray: Hopefully we're not going to invent a new language form to express a while loop. We're going to use while. If that's what we need, we're going to use common paradigms.
16:47:25 [Norm]
Alex: 4.11 is a big one. I collapsed two things together.
16:47:46 [Norm]
They seemed similar.
16:49:07 [Norm]
Norm: 4.11, 4.14, [Murray: and 4.17] all collapse toghether as design principles
16:49:13 [Norm]
16:49:44 [Norm]
Alex; but we want to keep the requirement that it isn't API-based
16:50:05 [Norm]
Alex: In 4.17 there are issues that involve serialization that we need to be aware of
16:50:13 [Norm]
Murray: Can't we refer to something for this?
16:50:29 [Norm]
Alex: Yes. (XSLT 2.0 Serialization, the scribe assumes)
16:51:09 [Norm]
Murray: How about a design principle that says something like "not withstanding serialization deltas" and go on to explain that with a document reference.
16:51:29 [Norm]
Alex: I was going to put in the requirement that we're going to do what's already been done and point to the document
16:51:51 [Norm]
Alex: Design principle: we don't need to reinvent things done by other groups
16:53:31 [Norm]
Some discussion of 4.18 and whether or not it's part of 4.10
16:53:38 [Norm]
Alex: I'm going to try to roll them together
16:53:56 [Norm]
Murray: we need common naming.
16:55:16 [Norm]
Norm points out that there are two separate issues here but doesn't object to combining them in the spec
16:55:28 [Norm]
Alex: that gets us to 4.19.
16:56:27 [Norm]
Murray: I think iteration needs to be in the group with specifying inputs and outputs, conditionals, etc.
16:56:40 [Norm]
Murray: There just needs to be a progression in the requirements.
16:58:23 [Norm]
zakim, next agendum
16:58:23 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Any other business" taken up [from Norm]
16:59:11 [Norm]
Murray: The term "allow" isn't very helpful and something more specific is needed.
16:59:28 [Norm]
Norm: "allow" didn't bother me.
16:59:35 [Norm]
Murray: I did that in each intance
16:59:41 [Norm]
16:59:58 [Norm]
Murray: Allow can just mean "give permission" and that's not sufficient.
17:00:42 [Zakim]
17:00:43 [Zakim]
17:00:45 [Zakim]
17:00:46 [Zakim]
17:00:47 [Norm]
17:00:48 [Zakim]
17:00:49 [Zakim]
17:00:50 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
17:01:36 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
17:05:47 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Ht, in XML_PMWG()11:00AM
17:05:49 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
17:05:51 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, rlopes, Alex_Milowski, Ht, PGrosso, +1.519.538.aaaa, Murray, ebruchez
17:17:00 [Norm]
rrsagent, make logs public
17:17:08 [Norm]
rrsagent, make draft minutes
17:17:08 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make draft minutes', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:17:13 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:17:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:17:21 [Norm]
17:21:35 [MSM]
Yes, Norm?
17:21:40 [MSM]
Sorry to have been awol
17:22:18 [MSM]
and i have a question for you - a colleague is asking how to suppress unwanted / unnecessary ns decls in xslt 2.0 output, and i can't remember / figure out the answer
17:23:36 [MSM]
ah, exclude-result-prefixes ... exactly. But MK's 2.0 book does not have "namespaces -- suppressing unwanted declarations" in the index. 1.0 book does
17:35:11 [Norm]
Sorry. Distracted getting the minutes out. MSM, are you still there?
18:40:22 [MSM]
hi, norm, i'm here if you are
19:01:54 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc
19:01:59 [Norm]
19:02:02 [Norm]
Welcome back
19:02:35 [MSM]
Hi, Norm
19:02:37 [MSM]
is there a trick to exclude-namespace-prefixes in XSLT 2.0?
19:02:39 [MSM]
(or in 1.0, for that matter)
19:02:43 [MSM]
it doesn't seem to be producing the expected results.
19:02:54 [MSM]
namely, it seems to be having no effect whatsoever
19:03:03 [Norm]
Uhm. No. It should work.
19:03:06 [Norm]
Note that if you *use* the namespace, it may get output anyway.
19:03:17 [MSM]
19:03:21 [Norm]
And it may also get output if you do an xsl:copy of a node that includes it, I think
19:03:37 [MSM]
or - ah, I bet writing something out in xsl:message doesn't count as serialization
19:03:54 [Norm]
If you send me a test case, I'll play around
19:03:54 [Norm]
Uhm. It might.
19:04:12 [MSM]
so <xsl:copy-of select="$suspect_variable"/> might get the namespaces anyway
19:04:15 [Norm]
19:04:36 [Norm]
I find I have to <xsl:element name="{}" namespace="{}"> ... </xsl:element> sometimes to avoid the extra ns decls
19:04:43 [MSM]
I'll try to reduce the huge mass of templates Ian Jacobs is trying to fix into a small test case
19:04:53 [Norm]
What I wanted to ask is: are you available to chair the 2 Feb and 9 Feb XProc calls? I'll be on vacation and HT is at risk.
19:05:03 [Norm]
Hmm. You're probably not avail 2 Feb. How about 9 Feb?
19:05:09 [MSM]
2 Feb I'm in the XSL meeting
19:05:17 [Norm]
Right. I just thought of that.
19:05:18 [MSM]
9 Feb I'm here and willing to chair
19:05:25 [MSM]
or at least play traffic cop on the phone
19:05:42 [Norm]
Ok. I'll ask Paul Grosso to chair 2 Feb if there's quorem and I'm asking you to chair 9 Feb :-)
19:05:58 [MSM]
Thanks. I'll write it down in Evolution.
19:06:09 [Norm]
19:06:11 [Norm]
Much appreciated
19:06:27 [MSM]
19:06:33 [MSM]
19:06:55 [Norm]
19:07:12 [MSM]
i mean, are you planning to write up an agenda before you go lie on the beach? or shall we wing it, or what
19:07:16 [Norm]
I'm pretty sure we'll spend at least the next two weeks just discussing the requirements doc
19:07:27 [Norm]
For which, I'm mostly willing to let alex drive
19:07:40 [MSM]
ok, so i'll expect to say "Let's take up our discussion of the requirements doc" and "any other business?"
19:07:47 [MSM]
19:07:53 [Norm]
What I want is to push the group as hard as possible to be finished with that by the plenary. Or to spend no more than one day at th eplenary finishing. I want to use the f2f time to do technical work if at all humanly possible
19:07:55 [MSM]
alex seems to be working out well as an editor.
19:08:16 [Norm]
So far. I hope he can continue to deliver drafts in a timely fashion.
19:08:25 [MSM]
How was Murray today? Is he going to be able to get back into the nitti gritti?
19:08:38 [MSM]
rrsagent, please excuse us
19:08:38 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items