IRC log of xproc on 2006-08-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:55:10 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:55:10 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/08/31-xproc-irc
14:55:26 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:55:27 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:55:27 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:55:27 [Norm]
Date: 31 Aug 2006
14:55:27 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:55:27 [Norm]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/08/31-agenda.html
14:55:29 [Norm]
Meeting: 33
14:59:54 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:00:02 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:00:11 [rlopes]
Zakim, [ip is Rui
15:00:11 [Zakim]
+Rui; got it
15:00:26 [Zakim]
+Norm
15:00:45 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:00:59 [Zakim]
+[ArborText]
15:01:23 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:01:23 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:01:25 [Zakim]
+Ht
15:01:52 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:02:27 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc
15:02:29 [Zakim]
+??P3
15:02:32 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:02:36 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is AndrewF
15:02:36 [Zakim]
+AndrewF; got it
15:02:58 [MSM]
zakim, please call Michael-Office
15:02:58 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
15:02:59 [Zakim]
+Michael
15:03:08 [Zakim]
+??P5
15:03:08 [richard]
zakim, ? is richard
15:03:09 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:03:36 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Rui, Norm, PGrosso, Ht, AndrewF, Michael, richard
15:05:27 [Norm]
Present: Rui, Norm, Paul, Henry, Andrew, Michael, Richard
15:05:27 [Norm]
Regrets: Alessandro, Erik
15:05:59 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:05:59 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/08/31-agenda.html
15:06:05 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:06:07 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:06:07 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/08/17-agenda.html
15:06:16 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:06:20 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 7 Sep 2006
15:06:39 [Norm]
No regrets given.
15:07:12 [Norm]
Topic: Comments on the draft
15:07:37 [Norm]
Four things: add a description for p:declare-parameter
15:07:53 [Norm]
...Document select on p:param (we need to determine the context)
15:08:04 [Norm]
...Remove the special case in 4.1.1 for a source w/o step
15:08:16 [Norm]
...Add text about extension attributes and elements
15:08:56 [Norm]
...Do we allow p:declare-input on for-each, choose, etc.
15:09:37 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
15:09:37 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), MoZ
15:09:54 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:09:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Rui, Norm, PGrosso, Ht, AndrewF, Michael, richard
15:10:27 [Zakim]
+??P27
15:10:56 [MoZ]
Zakim, ?? is me
15:10:56 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:11:02 [Zakim]
+Alex_Milowski
15:11:17 [Norm]
Present: Rui, Norm, Paul, Henry, Andrew, Michael, Richard, Mohamed, Alex
15:11:30 [Norm]
Henry: We've talked about components and steps as quite different things
15:11:55 [Norm]
...in the draft, you've moved the other way. Now there are just classes of components.
15:11:59 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:12:28 [Norm]
Henry: I think that's a good idea, but I don't think we decided it.
15:13:44 [alexmilowski]
I've always thought of it that way too...
15:13:59 [alexmilowski]
(I'm muted to spare you Husky howling)
15:14:29 [Norm]
Henry: In that case, we need to speak of allowing users to create classes of components
15:15:04 [Norm]
Richard: I think the draft is confusing, it speaks of a graph of components, but choose and for-each aren't described as components.
15:15:40 [ht]
HST likes 'construct' for the language constructs
15:15:52 [ht]
and 'component' for XSLT and user-defined stuff
15:15:58 [ht]
and 'step' for the union of the two
15:16:39 [Norm]
Norm describes how in fact he thinks "for-each" is now in fact a component
15:17:26 [Norm]
Micheal: I'm a little concerned about losing the distinction between steps and components.
15:18:19 [Norm]
...Personally, I believe that people have a tendency to get confused about class/instance distinctions.
15:19:27 [Norm]
Norm describes pipelines as a graph of components and steps as a mechanism for instantiating those components.
15:20:18 [Norm]
Michael: I've got a pipeline with three XSLT stylesheets applied in sequence. I think I have three XML constructs in the XML description of the pipeline. I think I have three steps/stages in an abstract description of the pipeline.
15:20:41 [Norm]
...and three control blocks in memory, but perhaps only one copy of the processor if it's renetrant. But I have one of something, what is that?
15:20:48 [Norm]
...I had thought that that was a component.
15:22:01 [Norm]
Richard: A shell script may run a sequence of two or three programs and two of them may be the same.
15:22:20 [Norm]
...The fact that in the first case I meant programs and in the second I meant executable file doesn't seem confusing.
15:23:01 [Norm]
Michael: In some contexts, I can certainly imagine getting confused if we didn't have conventions for distinction between those things.
15:24:17 [Norm]
Richard: One reason I don't want to elaborate a whole set of names is because there is in fact at least a third case for each one. Suppose you run a pipeline twice. Now, not only are there are the layers we already had, there's also the instances of them running.
15:24:40 [Norm]
Henry: And this is entirely parallel to any description of an OO system.
15:24:57 [Norm]
Richard: There's also the fact that we have constructs that run a component repeatedly within the same pipeline.
15:25:08 [Norm]
Alex: Do we have to dig that deep?
15:25:40 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc
15:25:48 [Norm]
Richard: Let's look at it from the other end.
15:26:09 [Norm]
...We seem generally happy with the term "step" for the things that aren't built into the language.
15:26:39 [Norm]
...We need something for both language constructs and things not built into the language.
15:27:09 [Norm]
Michael: You'd rather say we plug the output ports of the X component into the input ports of the Y component. Why not step?
15:27:20 [MSM]
one syllable vs three syllables
15:27:24 [Norm]
Richard: The only reason I don't want to use step there is because we have a step element in the language.
15:29:48 [ht]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006Aug/0095.html
15:29:54 [Norm]
Norm describes his situation where components are synthesised sometimes
15:30:04 [ht]
See above for the diagram Richard just referred to
15:30:30 [Norm]
Richard: I also want to be able to be able to have steps in the document correspond to single components in the semantics
15:31:25 [Norm]
Henry: The only thing worth noting right now about the diagram is that it goes backwards wrt the current discussion. It uses step for the union.
15:33:12 [Norm]
Michael: I continue to be a little concerned about the absence of a term for the abstraction who's most obvious instantiation is a software module that a user might add to an available library
15:33:31 [Norm]
...what I'm hearing people say is that they want to use "component" for one of the constiuent parts of the pipeline
15:33:52 [Norm]
...I don't have a particular desire to use component in a slightly different way. I just don't think of invocations as instances of programs.
15:35:22 [Norm]
Richard: Defining a component, writing a component, is like defining a function. So XSLT would be a function that you called.
15:35:32 [Norm]
...A line of the program that called that function would be a "function call"
15:35:42 [Norm]
...And there would be other constructs that weren't function calls like conditionals and loops.
15:36:23 [Norm]
...In our language, "steps" are like function calls because we don't call the conditional things steps.
15:37:34 [Norm]
Henry: The problem with "step" for "statement" is that we have have an element named "step" which is the equivalent of "function call"
15:38:15 [Norm]
Norm proposes to try to use step and component consistently in the document and see if that helps
15:38:29 [Norm]
Michael: When CMS pipelines were introduced, the authors thought hard about the terminology.
15:39:00 [Norm]
...They used the term "stage" for the things that go between the pipeline characters.
15:39:11 [Norm]
...and for the processes that get connected up.
15:39:38 [Norm]
...I think in the abstract that step would be nicer, but stage does not have the collision with the usage of step as something which invokes something like XSLT
15:40:51 [Norm]
Topic: The select attribute on p:param
15:41:03 [Norm]
Norm summarizes the current state of the document
15:42:19 [Norm]
Norm: I think we need to allow source/href/here on p:param
15:42:33 [Norm]
Alex: I thought we agreed to do that, even though it gives me heartburn.
15:43:00 [Norm]
Alex: I was surprised not to see that in the document.
15:43:25 [Norm]
Alex: I think we should be clear that if you create a param that uses an input that isn't otherwise an input to the step, you're creating a new input dependency.
15:43:48 [Norm]
Richard: It's easy to statically determine what the dependencies are.
15:44:52 [Zakim]
+Murray_Maloney
15:45:29 [Norm]
Norm will update the document to allow p:param elements to specify a context for the select attribute.
15:45:39 [Norm]
Henry: I expect in due course that we'll have a shortcut for this.
15:48:28 [Norm]
Norm asks about allowing declare-input on p:choose, p:for-each, etc.
15:48:34 [Norm]
Richard: What about a declare-input that you don't ue?
15:48:38 [Norm]
s/ue/use/
15:48:59 [Norm]
Norm: Uhm
15:49:21 [Norm]
Richard: It doesn't seem to usefully document anything if you can't prevent dangling inputs.
15:50:14 [Norm]
Norm: Does anyone else want to be able to declare those inputs?
15:50:28 [Norm]
Murray: I don't see any reason not to
15:50:39 [Norm]
Richard: But unless we have rules that say that if you declare one, you must declare them all.
15:51:33 [ht]
MSM, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006Aug/0096.html for an attempt to follow up your suggestion wrt 'Stage'
15:51:45 [Norm]
Richard: The effect of declare input is simply to alias an existing name. So how come you're only allowed to use it in these particular places.
15:52:04 [Norm]
Richard: My inclination is not to allow it unless we work out what's allowed.
15:53:07 [Norm]
Norm: My middle ground is to say that a declare-input that you don't use is an error.
15:54:29 [Norm]
Henry: I feel that you should minimize the amount of work on the draft in this area.
15:54:52 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, we'll leave it alone, but not record that as a decision.
15:57:34 [Norm]
Norm proposes revising the draft before next week in an effort to get FPWD out
15:57:49 [Zakim]
-Murray_Maloney
15:57:51 [Zakim]
-PGrosso
15:57:52 [Zakim]
-Norm
15:57:53 [Zakim]
-richard
15:57:53 [Zakim]
-AndrewF
15:57:54 [Zakim]
-Ht
15:57:54 [Zakim]
-Rui
15:57:55 [Zakim]
-Alex_Milowski
15:57:56 [Zakim]
-MoZ
15:57:57 [AndrewF]
\quit
15:58:00 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
15:58:02 [Zakim]
-Michael
15:58:03 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:58:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were [IPcaller], Rui, Norm, PGrosso, Ht, AndrewF, Michael, richard, MoZ, Alex_Milowski, Murray_Maloney
15:59:39 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
15:59:42 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:59:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/08/31-xproc-minutes.html Norm
15:59:53 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
17:25:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
17:42:45 [Norm]
rrsagent, bye
17:42:45 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items