14:52:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:52:08 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/06/01-xproc-irc
14:52:42 <rlopes> rlopes has joined #xproc
14:53:29 <Alessandro> Alessandro has joined #xproc
14:53:52 <Norm> Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:53:52 <Norm> Scribe: Norm
14:53:52 <Norm> ScribeNick: Norm
14:53:52 <Norm> Date: 1 Jun 2006
14:53:52 <Norm> Chair: Norm
14:53:55 <Norm> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/06/01-agenda.html
14:55:56 <PGrosso> PGrosso has joined #xproc
14:56:45 <MoZ> MoZ has joined #xproc
14:57:16 <MoZ> Zakim, what is the code?
14:57:16 <Zakim> sorry, MoZ, I don't know what conference this is
14:57:39 <MoZ> Zakim, this will be xproc 
14:57:39 <Zakim> ok, MoZ; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:46 <MoZ> Zakim, what is the code?
14:57:46 <Zakim> the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), MoZ
14:58:25 <Zakim> XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
14:58:27 <Zakim> +Norm
14:58:40 <Zakim> +moz
14:58:41 <Zakim> -moz
14:58:43 <Zakim> +moz
14:58:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:59:14 <rlopes> zakim,  [ip is Rui
14:59:14 <Zakim> +Rui; got it
14:59:19 <Zakim> +Alessandro_Vernet
15:00:04 <Zakim> +[ArborText]
15:00:36 <ht> zakim, please call ht-781
15:00:36 <Zakim> ok, ht; the call is being made
15:00:38 <Zakim> +Ht
15:01:23 <richard> richard has joined #xproc
15:02:00 <Zakim> +??P22
15:02:03 <richard> zakim, ? is richard
15:02:03 <Zakim> +richard; got it
15:03:04 <AndrewF> AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:03:37 <Zakim> +??P25
15:03:46 <AndrewF> zakim, ? is AndrewF
15:03:46 <Zakim> +AndrewF; got it
15:44:59 <PGrosso> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006May/0141.html
15:45:54 <MoZ> to slow ...:(
15:46:08 <MoZ> thx paul
15:59:57 <Zakim> -Norm
15:59:58 <Zakim> -Ht
15:59:58 <Zakim> -richard
15:59:59 <Zakim> -moz
16:00:01 <Zakim> -PGrosso
16:00:02 <Zakim> -Rui
16:00:03 <Zakim> -Alessandro_Vernet
16:00:04 <Zakim> -AndrewF
16:00:05 <PGrosso> PGrosso has left #xproc
16:00:06 <Zakim> XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:00:08 <Zakim> Attendees were Norm, moz, [IPcaller], Rui, Alessandro_Vernet, PGrosso, Ht, richard, AndrewF
16:00:34 <MoZ> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:00:34 <Zakim> apparently XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended, MoZ
16:00:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see richard, MoZ, Alessandro, RRSAgent, Zakim, MSM, ht
16:06:01 <Norm> Norm has joined #xproc
16:06:32 <Norm> Presents: Norm, Mohamed, Rui, Alessando, Paul, Henry, Richard, Andrew
16:06:32 <Norm> Regrets: Murray, Michael
16:06:32 <Norm> Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:06:32 <Norm> -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/06/01-agenda.html
16:06:32 <Norm> Accepted.
16:06:34 <Norm> Topic: Accept minutes from the previous teleconference?
16:06:36 <Norm> -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/05/25-minutes.html
16:06:38 <Norm> Accepted.
16:06:40 <Norm> Topic: Next meeting: 8 June telcon
16:06:42 <Norm> Any regrets?
16:06:44 <Norm> None given.
16:06:46 <Norm> Topic: Face-to-face: 2-4 Aug 2006.
16:06:48 <Norm> Topic: Review of open action items
16:06:50 <Norm>    1. A-22-01: Norm to create an issue to track xpath expressions over a sequence of documents
16:06:52 <Norm>    Completed: Issue #3306
16:06:54 <Norm>    2. A-13-01: MSM to draft a complete table; ETA: 15 June 2006
16:06:56 <Norm>    Continued
16:06:58 <Norm> Topic: Continuation of our syntax discussion
16:07:00 <Norm> Richard: Can you summarize where we are wrt syntax?
16:07:04 <Norm> Norm tries
16:07:06 <Norm> Rui: There was one point when we said that variables can contain strings only.
16:07:08 <Norm> But that didn't seem to be a point of consensus. Jeni was about to make the
16:07:10 <Norm> content a nodeset, for example.
16:07:12 <Norm> Richard: Should we attempt to agree a version 0 where we say "no we're
16:07:14 <Norm> not having any of those" and then see where we get.
16:07:16 <Norm> Norm: That seems reasonable to me. Do you have a proposal?
16:07:18 <Norm> Richard: No, we don't have variables. We just have inputs, outputs,
16:07:20 <Norm> parameters. Parameters are strings. There's no scoping mechanism. Then
16:07:22 <Norm> we can discuss which things we add. This isn't what the spec will say,
16:07:24 <Norm> but it will help us get some things out of the way.
16:07:26 <Norm> Norm: A concrete syntax for this?
16:07:28 <Norm> Richard: Yes. Then we could have some implementations of it.
16:07:30 <Norm> Norm: I really want to know where XPath expressions fit in.
16:07:34 <Norm> Richard: I was going to suggest no XPath at all, parameters are
16:07:36 <Norm> constant strings.
16:07:38 <Norm> ... Then discussions of XPaths will involve proposals to change that
16:07:40 <Norm> existing syntax.
16:07:42 <Norm> Norm: What do others think about this approach?
16:07:44 <Norm> Paul: I'm always for simplification.
16:07:49 <Norm> Alessandro: If we do that, will we have to back-track if we want to go
16:07:49 <Norm> to a syntax that allowed XPath.
16:07:50 <Norm> Richard: Maybe.
16:07:52 <Norm> Alessandro: So maybe we want to make a decision early on about XPath.
16:07:54 <Norm> Henry: As long as we don't let this out into the wild too much, or we all
16:07:56 <Norm> solemnly swear that backward incompatibilities with this syntax won't have
16:07:58 <Norm> any impact on our future decisions, I think it'd be ok. I don't think it's
16:08:00 <Norm> a mistake.
16:08:02 <Norm> Richard: I was not suggesting that any version 0 would exist for any
16:08:04 <Norm> purpose other than to help us consider what version 1 should be.
16:08:08 <Norm> Alternatively, if you think that's too simple, can we enumerate now
16:08:25 <Norm> which things we need to decide before we do a version zero.
16:08:25 <Norm> Norm expresses that it was XPaths that were this feature in his personal
16:08:25 <Norm> explorations.
16:08:25 <Norm> Mohamed: I think that the way Jeni is exploring the use of XPath for
16:08:26 <Norm> conditionals is useful research. But the fear I have is that at the
16:08:28 <Norm> moment the XPath using is augmenting the power of XPath by adding new
16:08:30 <Norm> functions. For example, count on sequences. Some of this are extremely
16:08:32 <Norm> needed. We have to focus on the problem of speaking about sequences of
16:08:34 <Norm> documents and how we handle this type.
16:08:36 <Norm> Norm: I propose that XPath over a sequence is an error.
16:08:38 <Norm> Richard: You can do it in XPath 1.0 (using union of document()s for example).
16:08:40 <Norm> These are separable. If the contexts were always given by a pipe going into
16:08:44 <Norm> the component, then if the sequence was a sequence you'd get a context
16:08:46 <Norm> nodeset consisting of those nodes.
16:08:48 <Norm> Mohamed: But if you do $a|$b, you lose the order. It's a set. Maybe we
16:08:50 <Norm> have to say that it's a set and not a sequence.
16:08:52 <Norm> Norm: I still think we might get away with calling it an error.
16:08:56 <Norm> Richard: You can certainly work around it with other standard components
16:08:58 <Norm> if we made it an error.
16:09:00 <Norm> Norm: Yes, you can certainly work around it.
16:09:02 <Norm> Richard: And a future version could allow them.
16:09:04 <Norm> Norm, carrying Jeni's proxy, attempts to argue for Jeni's position
16:09:06 <Norm> that we should allow the variable syntax reference to documents.
16:09:08 <Norm> Some discussion of how much work it is to analyze the expressions.
16:09:10 <Norm> Doesn't really require a full XPath parser, but does require care with
16:09:14 <Norm> quoted strings.
16:09:16 <Norm> Richard: Use of variables there would suggest that that's how they should
16:09:18 <Norm> be used everywhere.
16:09:20 <Norm> Norm: I'm not sure I want arbitrary XPath expressions in ref=.
16:09:22 <Norm> Richard: If what you say is a document is ref="$name", then you're
16:09:24 <Norm> saying that the value of ref is an XPath referring to a document.
16:09:26 <Norm> Then you might expect to say ref="document('http://...')".
16:09:28 <Norm> Alessandro: XPath doesn't have a document() function, that's from XSLT.
16:09:30 <Norm> Richard: It would also lead people to believe that you could just use
16:09:32 <Norm> part of the output with ref="$foo/something".
16:09:34 <Norm> Norm: I think we'd have to say that ref is a bare label or that ref is
16:09:36 <Norm> a single variable reference. Either way we violate the principle of
16:09:38 <Norm> least surprise, but I'm not sure what else we can do.
16:09:40 <Norm> Richard: I'm happy to go with the variable reference mechanism if
16:09:44 <Norm> that's what the group wants, but I'm not enthusiastic about it. How
16:09:46 <Norm> about a straw poll?
16:09:48 <Norm> Norm: Straw poll: documents by variable reference syntax, or some other
16:09:50 <Norm> syntax that limits XPath expressions to a single document. Is that clear?
16:09:52 <Norm> (Not really)
16:09:54 <Norm> Richard: Within XPath expressions, documents as dollar variables?
16:09:56 <Norm> Richard: To clarify, saying "yes" is supporting what Jeni wants, right?
16:09:58 <Norm> Henry: I'm not sure I understand the implications. Can we look at some
16:10:00 <Norm> email.
16:10:02 <Norm> Alessandro: Jeni's relevant message is titled "How should variables be set?" 
16:10:05 <Norm> Richard: (Reading the mail) Option A: XPath expressions are evaluated
16:10:06 <Norm> over a single document. Option B: Expressions are evaluated with no
16:10:08 <Norm> context node, variables are used to refer to intermediate documents.
16:10:10 <Norm> (Paraphrased by the scribe who has no connectivity at the moment.)
16:10:16 <Norm> Henry: I don't like either of these, I think this is the wrong level.
16:10:18 <Norm> Is this meant to be the syntax that users write? This pushes aspect of
16:10:20 <Norm> the low-level syntax into the XPath in ways I don't like at all. We've
16:10:22 <Norm> said repeatedly that for simple straight-through pipelines, we
16:10:24 <Norm> shouldn't require authors to know the names of any inputs and outputs.
16:10:26 <Norm> If we achieve that goal, then none of these approaches will work
16:10:28 <Norm> because they require you to know the names of things.
16:10:30 <Norm> Norm: Don't you think the simple case is that there are no xpath
16:10:32 <Norm> expressions?
16:10:34 <Norm> Henry: I should be able to use XPaths without having to add any other
16:10:36 <Norm> mechanism. I think the 90% case for using XPaths will be to refer to
16:10:38 <Norm> the only document that there is in any given step. I don't see that as
16:10:40 <Norm> falling out of either of these proposals.
16:10:44 <Norm> ACTION: Henry to describe an alternate proposal in email.
16:10:46 <Norm> Richard: Have we considered the following: XPath's can't refer to any
16:10:48 <Norm> documents except the documents that are input to the steps. It can
16:10:50 <Norm> refer to those by name.
16:10:52 <Norm> Norm: We haven't considered that before, but I do like it.
16:10:54 <Norm> Rui: If we do this, then we'll have steps with lots of inputs.
16:10:56 <Norm> We'll have to pass all the documents we want to refer to as inputs.
16:10:58 <Norm> This will make dependency analysis harder.
16:11:00 <Norm> Richard: I don't understand. I'm expecting most of my steps not to have
16:11:02 <Norm> any XPaths at all. Most of the ones that do are going to refer to a single
16:11:04 <Norm> document. The case where there are multiple documents in a single XPath
16:11:06 <Norm> seems like an edge case.
16:11:08 <Norm> Rui: I think that they'll be used in conditionals and in debugging
16:11:10 <Norm> parameters. If you close the domain of the access of the variable to
16:11:14 <Norm> only what's in the input, you'll have to give a lot of inputs.
16:11:16 <Norm> Richard: You were thinking of pipeline variables that you could set to
16:11:18 <Norm> these things. I was only thinking of this to deal with documents, not
16:11:20 <Norm> with constants.
16:11:22 <Norm> Norm: I don't think the straw poll would be valuable, does anyone?
16:11:24 <Norm> Paul: No, but we need actions if we're going to make progress.
16:11:26 <Norm> Norm: Richard would you take an action to write a syntax proposal?
16:11:28 <Norm> Richard: Yes.
16:11:30 <Norm> ACTION: Richard to write a syntax proposal.
16:11:32 <Norm> ACTION: Norm to write a syntax proposal.
16:11:34 <Norm> Topic: Any other business?
16:11:36 <Norm> None.
16:11:38 <Norm> rrsagent, pointer
16:11:38 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2006/06/01-xproc-irc#T16-11-38
16:13:44 <Norm> rrsagent, make logs world-visbile
16:13:51 <Norm> rrsagent, make logs world-visible
16:14:07 <Norm> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:14:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/06/01-xproc-minutes.html Norm