IRC log of xproc on 2006-09-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:56:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:57:06 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:57:06 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:57:06 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:57:06 [Norm]
Date: 14 Sep 2006
14:57:06 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:57:07 [Norm]
14:57:09 [Norm]
Meeting: 35
14:58:03 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
14:59:10 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
14:59:12 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
14:59:19 [Zakim]
14:59:28 [rlopes]
Zakim, [ is Rui
14:59:28 [Zakim]
+Rui; got it
14:59:44 [Zakim]
15:00:31 [Zakim]
15:01:10 [Zakim]
15:02:06 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:02:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Rui, Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso
15:02:09 [Zakim]
15:02:15 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:02:41 [MoZ]
zakim ? is me
15:02:48 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:02:48 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:02:49 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:02:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Rui, Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso, ??P37
15:02:51 [Zakim]
15:02:52 [MoZ]
zakim, ? is me
15:02:52 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:02:54 [Zakim]
15:02:58 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is AndrewF
15:02:58 [Zakim]
+AndrewF; got it
15:03:08 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Rui, Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso, MoZ, Ht, AndrewF
15:03:21 [MoZ]
Zakim, who is making noise?
15:03:27 [Norm]
MSM, are you joining us today?
15:03:31 [Zakim]
MoZ, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ht (49%)
15:04:28 [Norm]
We want you ht, just not the accompanying noise :-)
15:04:45 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:04:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Rui, Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso, MoZ, Ht, AndrewF
15:04:47 [ht]
Apologies from Richard Tobin, off ill today
15:05:26 [Zakim]
15:05:39 [Norm]
Present: Alex, Andrew, Henry, Michael, Mohamed, Norm, Paul, Rui
15:05:39 [Norm]
Regrets: Alessandro, Erik, Murray, Richard
15:06:26 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:06:26 [Norm]
15:06:33 [alexmilowski]
pre coffee, only partially present...
15:06:49 [Norm]
15:06:53 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:06:53 [Norm]
15:07:04 [Norm]
15:07:08 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 21 Sep 2006
15:07:26 [Norm]
Possible regrets: Rui
15:07:32 [Norm]
Topic: Review of open action items
15:07:50 [Norm]
A-13-01: Continued.
15:07:54 [Norm]
Topic: Technical discussion
15:07:57 [ht]
zakim, who is making noise?
15:08:08 [Norm]
A-34-01: Completed
15:08:08 [Zakim]
ht, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Norm (65%), Michael (54%)
15:08:33 [Norm]
zakim, mute msm
15:08:33 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not see a party named 'msm'
15:08:37 [Norm]
zakim, mute micheal
15:08:37 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not see a party named 'micheal'
15:08:42 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:08:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Rui, Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso, MoZ, Ht, AndrewF, Michael
15:08:49 [Norm]
zakim, mute michaeeal
15:08:49 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not see a party named 'michaeeal'
15:08:51 [Norm]
zakim, mute michael
15:08:51 [Zakim]
Michael should now be muted
15:08:51 [ht]
zakim, please mute michael
15:08:52 [Zakim]
Michael was already muted, ht
15:09:17 [ht]
15:09:44 [Norm]
Discussion of draft
15:09:59 [Norm]
Henry: I'd like to talk about steps and components
15:10:13 [Norm]
Alex: I'd like to talk about 4.1.3
15:10:49 [Norm]
Henry: I'd like to see if we can't reach consensus before the end of this call.
15:11:22 [Norm]
Alex: I'd like to see about fixing my example too.
15:12:39 [Norm]
Henry: Everything up to 2.1 is fine except that figure 2 needs a transform step at the end, not a validate step
15:12:40 [MSM]
also s/rerpesents/represents/
15:12:43 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to fix section 2
15:12:49 [Norm]
15:13:17 [MSM]
also s/Definition: A step which contains other steps is called a step containers./...container./
15:13:18 [Norm]
Henry: Steps ought to be bits of markup; but we talk about step containers which ought to be about components
15:13:56 [Norm]
Henry: All of sections 2 and 3 don't need any notion of representation or anything like that
15:14:40 [Norm]
Henry: The introduction of the notion of representation and the XML level in section 2 is a mistake and you don't stay with it.
15:15:13 [MSM]
q+ to suggest that the absence of a definition of 'step' is symptomatic of a problem. I'm not entirely certain which problem. But a problem.
15:16:13 [Norm]
Norm tries to explain his view
15:16:25 [MSM]
q+ and to ask for more info about the non-1:1 relation between 'step' and 'component'
15:16:45 [Norm]
Norm: Steps are syntax and some of them have steps inside them. Components get instantiated and some of them contain subpiplines.
15:17:11 [Norm]
Henry: Maybe we can just try to write the first two sentences of 2.1 without saying anything about pipeline documents or represents
15:17:22 [Norm]
Henry: You've chosen "component" as the over-arching term.
15:17:46 [Norm]
Henry: Some components are atomic like xslt and atomic and others are "constructs" or "step containers"
15:18:00 [Norm]
Henry: Except that we have components now so they ought to be component containers.
15:18:32 [Norm]
Henry: Many components are simple and atomic and correspond to a single operation. An XSLT component, for example...
15:18:56 [Norm]
Henry: However, some components are containers for other components...called a container...called contained components
15:19:06 [MSM]
q+ and to warn about looming contradiction: nest containers, or pipelines as DAGs of components. We can have either but not both.
15:20:20 [Norm]
Alex: Step and step container is still an abstract concept, it's not just markup.
15:20:49 [Norm]
Alex: Component is something that has to be bound and has to have all that information.
15:21:07 [Norm]
Alex: I'm not sure that drawing an analogy between the language constructs and a component is the right thing.
15:21:32 [Norm]
Alex: Components containing components seems awfully technical, do we really need to go there?
15:21:37 [Norm]
Henry: I like the way the first section reads
15:21:40 [MSM]
if a pipeline is a DAG of (atomic) components, then we've got: graphs, subgraphs, and nodes
15:21:42 [Norm]
ack msm
15:21:42 [Zakim]
MSM, you wanted to suggest that the absence of a definition of 'step' is symptomatic of a problem. I'm not entirely certain which problem. But a problem.
15:21:56 [MSM]
ack Michael
15:21:56 [Norm]
zakim, unmute michael
15:21:58 [Zakim]
Michael was not muted, Norm
15:22:06 [Norm]
zakim, msm is michael
15:22:06 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named 'msm'
15:22:08 [ht]
zakim, michael is MSM
15:22:08 [Zakim]
+MSM; got it
15:23:06 [Norm]
Michael: I have an unease similar to Henry's: as a first time reader, I can't tell if step is an abstract unit that may correspond to a subgraph or an XML thing (or both). And so I agree with Henry that there's room for improvement here.
15:23:06 [ht]
So, Alex, note in section 1 we have "The standard “choose” component evaluates"
15:23:18 [ht]
which reads just fine to me
15:23:44 [Norm]
Michael: Unfortunately, Henry's proposal has a contradition: either components nest and they're similar to blocks in Algol style programming languages *OR* pipelines are DAGs of components.
15:24:15 [Norm]
Henry: I've come to think that that's not the best way to think about these things.
15:24:25 [Norm]
Henry: At the same time, a component container is a node in one graph and has a graph inside it.
15:24:44 [Norm]
Michael: Then the definition of pipeline as "a graph" is misleading.
15:25:28 [Norm]
Henry: Look at figure 2. The Choose box contains a subgraph.
15:25:52 [Norm]
Henry: There are important constraints that are captured naturally by saying that the nodes are either atomic or contain subgraphs.
15:26:04 [Norm]
Michael: Then we should say that the graphs inside are separate.
15:26:29 [Norm]
Michael: Let's talk about it in sort of purely graph terms. I think there are two ways to tell the grpah story.
15:26:31 [Norm]
15:27:13 [Norm]
Michael: One way is to say that the graphs are contained inside and don't connect.
15:27:37 [Norm]
Michael: Another way is to say that there is a graph that has all the components in it. The way to view choose is a subgraph of that larger graph.
15:28:05 [Norm]
Michael: If we think of it in terms of the latter approach, then the drawing here is not the flat graph either. You need a splitter node and ajoiner node as well.
15:28:05 [alexmilowski]
q+ to modify that definition of subgraph
15:28:36 [ht]
q+ to point back to the agreement from Ontario
15:28:57 [Norm]
Michael: Steps then always correspond to subgraphs; atomic steps just correspond to a single node.
15:29:24 [Norm]
ack alexmilowski
15:29:24 [Zakim]
alexmilowski, you wanted to modify that definition of subgraph
15:29:42 [Norm]
Norm: I prefer the former definition.
15:29:45 [Norm]
Alex: I prefer the latter.
15:30:36 [Norm]
Alex: My model is that there is a single graph. I think of choose being a node in the graph.
15:30:51 [Norm]
ack ht
15:30:51 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to point back to the agreement from Ontario
15:31:26 [Norm]
Henry: I'm happy with the first story. I don't understand the second yet.
15:31:43 [Norm]
15:31:50 [Norm]
15:32:37 [Norm]
Henry: Having the language constructs like choose and for-each be a locus of ports (of nodes in the graph) and a scope all seem to work well together.
15:32:58 [Norm]
Henry: It must be the case in some sense that the stories are isomorphic, but I think the story that's in the document is much closer to the first story.
15:33:52 [ht]
Thank you Norm, that is indeed the picture I wanted
15:34:27 [Norm]
Norm proposes to talk about 4.1.3 for a bit as it seems directly relevant to which story we're telling.
15:34:33 [ht]
s/that is indeed/the first of those is indeed/
15:35:12 [Norm]
Alex: What happens when some contained step points off to something that it's allowed to access.
15:35:26 [Norm]
Alex: In 4.1.3 we say that we have some fabricated declaration.
15:35:41 [Norm]
Alex: It's going to be a mess to report errors.
15:36:01 [Norm]
Alex: It's not helpful to make this thing self contained.
15:39:10 [Norm]
Norm and Alex go back and forth a bit about what the right answer s.
15:39:13 [Norm]
15:40:57 [Norm]
Alex: I see two ways out of this, allow declare input and actually make 4.1.3 valid against our current specification and acknowledge that people can do this. Or have a different model for how we talk about these things.
15:42:14 [Norm]
Alex: There's an inconsisentency here that bothers me.
15:42:41 [Norm]
Alex: There's a problem with for-each and view-port where you'd have to be able to tell *which* for-each was the important one and which are the others.
15:43:29 [Norm]
Alex: Maybe it would be better to draw a picture.
15:44:52 [Norm]
Norm: I propose dropping 4.1.3 for FPWD
15:45:08 [Norm]
Alex: I'd be happy with that, perhaps with the ednote placed somewhere else with more explanation
15:46:53 [Norm]
Resolved, we'll drop 4.1.3 for FPWD
15:47:05 [MoZ]
+1 but letting now that the WG will propose shortcut syntax
15:47:13 [MoZ]
15:48:42 [Norm]
Henry: My feeling is that I don't care if we don't settle this question in this WD either.
15:48:58 [Norm]
Henry: I'd like to see slightly more consistency in the story we tell in parts 2 and 3.
15:49:13 [Norm]
Henry: I'll volunteer to work on a new draft over the weekend.
15:51:34 [Norm]
Proposal: The WG will publish the current draft as the FPWD (with 4.1.3) removed.
15:51:53 [Norm]
So resolved.
15:52:22 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to request permission to publish
15:53:33 [Norm]
Proposed: If an alternate draft is proposed by close-of-business (Boston time) on Monday, the WG will have until close-of-business Wednesday to veto. If there are no veto's, the alternate draft will be published instead. The only plans for the alternate draft are to improve wording in sections 2 and 3.
15:54:15 [Norm]
15:55:41 [Norm]
Proposed publication date: 28 Sep 2006
15:55:58 [Norm]
15:56:15 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:56:35 [Norm]
15:56:45 [Zakim]
15:56:46 [Zakim]
15:56:46 [Zakim]
15:56:48 [Zakim]
15:56:49 [Zakim]
15:56:50 [Zakim]
15:56:51 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
15:56:55 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:56:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
15:56:57 [Zakim]
15:56:59 [Zakim]
15:57:00 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:57:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were [IPcaller], Rui, Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso, Ht, MoZ, AndrewF, MSM
15:57:29 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
15:59:41 [ht]
Norm -- difference between langspec.xml and ,langspec.xml ?
15:59:57 [Norm]
,langspec.xml is post-Xinclude
16:00:06 [ht]
16:00:09 [Norm]
langspec.xml is the editable source
16:00:12 [Norm]
oh, and, uhm, by the way...
16:00:16 [Norm]
It's in DocBook V5. :-)
16:00:26 [ht]
Shall I create ED-xproc-20060918 ?
16:00:35 [Norm]
16:00:36 [ht]
16:00:39 [Norm]
16:00:45 [ht]
I'll cope
16:00:53 [Norm]
write words if it comes to that and I'll deal with the markup
16:01:50 [ht]
Got an SVG original for those pngs anywhere?
16:02:21 [Norm]
You might need
16:02:27 [Norm]
In docs/graphics/*.svg
16:03:05 [MoZ]
Norm, will you have the time for typos or do you want to someone to help ?
16:03:06 [ht]
MSM, you might find useful -- one of the attachments is SVG of box + graph cmoponenets
16:03:27 [Norm]
MoZ, if you report 'em, I'll make a pass through. I'll run a spell checker too :-)
16:03:35 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
16:03:42 [ht]
Norm -- SVG -- Excellent!
16:04:10 [MoZ]
Norm, i report'em on last version and they're still there ;)
16:04:21 [Norm]
Eventually, I want an automatic process for generating SVG for the pictures from pipeline documents, but righ tnow they're just inkscape drawings
16:04:30 [Norm]
moz, sorry. I'll check the archives
16:04:33 [ht]
Inkscape is what I use
16:06:34 [ht]
Sigh, cygwin distro stops with docbook 4.4 :-(
16:06:53 [ht]
How broken will that be?
16:07:10 [Norm]
Bits and bobs. It'll mostly be ok.
16:07:22 [Norm]
Here. I'll quickly build a 4.4 version for you
16:07:28 [ht]
What about stylesheets? Stop
16:07:42 [ht]
Easier if you tar me up a DTD and set of stylesheets, or is that hard?
16:07:52 [Norm]
16:08:22 [Norm]
I'll send along the stylesheets and stuff.
16:08:47 [ht]
Thank you, stop after 5 minutes' work, it's not worth more than that
16:09:01 [Norm]
ok. let me get the transition request finished first :-)
16:10:51 [ht]
Good news is Richard's xinclude impl works -- gives same result as ,langspec.xml
16:11:35 [Norm]
bah, I need to write reasonable abstracts and status before I can finish the request. I'll come back to that later today.
16:11:43 [ht]
So I'll write a pipeline that Does the Right Thing
16:12:47 [Norm]
16:14:44 [Norm]
Got Saxon 8?
16:15:10 [ht]
No: saxon -version
16:15:10 [ht]
Unknown option -version
16:15:10 [ht]
SAXON 6.5.4 from Michael Kay
16:15:14 [ht]
16:15:38 [ht]
N'mind, I'll use the 4.4 stylesheets, I'm sure it will be close enough for proofing
16:15:39 [Norm]
16:15:51 [Norm]
16:16:01 [ht]
Let me try that, I'll report back
16:16:34 [Norm]
You'll probably get an awful document title section, I've customized that a bit to make it come out in W3C style, but the actual sections should be mostly ok.
16:16:37 [Norm]
Sorry for the trouble.