14:56:52 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:56:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-xproc-irc 14:57:06 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 14:57:06 Scribe: Norm 14:57:06 ScribeNick: Norm 14:57:06 Date: 14 Sep 2006 14:57:06 Chair: Norm 14:57:07 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/09/14-agenda.html 14:57:09 Meeting: 35 14:58:03 PGrosso has joined #xproc 14:59:10 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 14:59:12 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 14:59:19 +[IPcaller] 14:59:28 Zakim, [ is Rui 14:59:28 +Rui; got it 14:59:44 +Alex_Milowski 15:00:31 +Norm 15:01:10 +[ArborText] 15:02:06 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:02:06 On the phone I see Rui, Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso 15:02:09 +??P37 15:02:15 AndrewF has joined #xproc 15:02:41 zakim ? is me 15:02:48 zakim, please call ht-781 15:02:48 ok, ht; the call is being made 15:02:49 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:02:49 On the phone I see Rui, Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso, ??P37 15:02:51 +Ht 15:02:52 zakim, ? is me 15:02:52 +MoZ; got it 15:02:54 +??P27 15:02:58 zakim, ? is AndrewF 15:02:58 +AndrewF; got it 15:03:08 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:03:08 On the phone I see Rui, Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso, MoZ, Ht, AndrewF 15:03:21 Zakim, who is making noise? 15:03:27 MSM, are you joining us today? 15:03:31 MoZ, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ht (49%) 15:04:28 We want you ht, just not the accompanying noise :-) 15:04:45 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:04:45 On the phone I see Rui, Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso, MoZ, Ht, AndrewF 15:04:47 Apologies from Richard Tobin, off ill today 15:05:26 +Michael 15:05:39 Present: Alex, Andrew, Henry, Michael, Mohamed, Norm, Paul, Rui 15:05:39 Regrets: Alessandro, Erik, Murray, Richard 15:06:26 Topic: Accept this agenda? 15:06:26 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/09/14-agenda.html 15:06:33 pre coffee, only partially present... 15:06:49 Accepted. 15:06:53 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 15:06:53 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/09/07-minutes.html 15:07:04 Accepted. 15:07:08 Topic: Next meeting: telcon 21 Sep 2006 15:07:26 Possible regrets: Rui 15:07:32 Topic: Review of open action items 15:07:50 A-13-01: Continued. 15:07:54 Topic: Technical discussion 15:07:57 zakim, who is making noise? 15:08:08 A-34-01: Completed 15:08:08 ht, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Norm (65%), Michael (54%) 15:08:33 zakim, mute msm 15:08:33 sorry, Norm, I do not see a party named 'msm' 15:08:37 zakim, mute micheal 15:08:37 sorry, Norm, I do not see a party named 'micheal' 15:08:42 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:08:42 On the phone I see Rui, Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso, MoZ, Ht, AndrewF, Michael 15:08:49 zakim, mute michaeeal 15:08:49 sorry, Norm, I do not see a party named 'michaeeal' 15:08:51 zakim, mute michael 15:08:51 Michael should now be muted 15:08:51 zakim, please mute michael 15:08:52 Michael was already muted, ht 15:09:17 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/ED-xproc-20060912/#steps 15:09:44 Discussion of draft 15:09:59 Henry: I'd like to talk about steps and components 15:10:13 Alex: I'd like to talk about 4.1.3 15:10:49 Henry: I'd like to see if we can't reach consensus before the end of this call. 15:11:22 Alex: I'd like to see about fixing my example too. 15:12:39 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 also s/rerpesents/represents/ 15:12:43 ACTION: Norm to fix section 2 15:12:49 s/section/figure/ 15:13:17 also s/Definition: A step which contains other steps is called a step containers./...container./ 15:13:18 Henry: Steps ought to be bits of markup; but we talk about step containers which ought to be about components 15:13:56 Henry: All of sections 2 and 3 don't need any notion of representation or anything like that 15:14:40 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 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 tries to explain his view 15:16:25 q+ and to ask for more info about the non-1:1 relation between 'step' and 'component' 15:16:45 Norm: Steps are syntax and some of them have steps inside them. Components get instantiated and some of them contain subpiplines. 15:17:11 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 Henry: You've chosen "component" as the over-arching term. 15:17:46 Henry: Some components are atomic like xslt and atomic and others are "constructs" or "step containers" 15:18:00 Henry: Except that we have components now so they ought to be component containers. 15:18:32 Henry: Many components are simple and atomic and correspond to a single operation. An XSLT component, for example... 15:18:56 Henry: However, some components are containers for other components...called a container...called contained components 15:19:06 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 Alex: Step and step container is still an abstract concept, it's not just markup. 15:20:49 Alex: Component is something that has to be bound and has to have all that information. 15:21:07 Alex: I'm not sure that drawing an analogy between the language constructs and a component is the right thing. 15:21:32 Alex: Components containing components seems awfully technical, do we really need to go there? 15:21:37 Henry: I like the way the first section reads 15:21:40 if a pipeline is a DAG of (atomic) components, then we've got: graphs, subgraphs, and nodes 15:21:42 ack msm 15:21:42 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 ack Michael 15:21:56 zakim, unmute michael 15:21:58 Michael was not muted, Norm 15:22:06 zakim, msm is michael 15:22:06 sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named 'msm' 15:22:08 zakim, michael is MSM 15:22:08 +MSM; got it 15:23:06 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 So, Alex, note in section 1 we have "The standard “choose” component evaluates" 15:23:18 which reads just fine to me 15:23:44 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 Henry: I've come to think that that's not the best way to think about these things. 15:24:25 Henry: At the same time, a component container is a node in one graph and has a graph inside it. 15:24:44 Michael: Then the definition of pipeline as "a graph" is misleading. 15:25:28 Henry: Look at figure 2. The Choose box contains a subgraph. 15:25:52 Henry: There are important constraints that are captured naturally by saying that the nodes are either atomic or contain subgraphs. 15:26:04 Michael: Then we should say that the graphs inside are separate. 15:26:29 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 s/grpah/graph/ 15:27:13 Michael: One way is to say that the graphs are contained inside and don't connect. 15:27:37 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 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 q+ to modify that definition of subgraph 15:28:36 q+ to point back to the agreement from Ontario 15:28:57 Michael: Steps then always correspond to subgraphs; atomic steps just correspond to a single node. 15:29:24 ack alexmilowski 15:29:24 alexmilowski, you wanted to modify that definition of subgraph 15:29:42 Norm: I prefer the former definition. 15:29:45 Alex: I prefer the latter. 15:30:36 Alex: My model is that there is a single graph. I think of choose being a node in the graph. 15:30:51 ack ht 15:30:51 ht, you wanted to point back to the agreement from Ontario 15:31:26 Henry: I'm happy with the first story. I don't understand the second yet. 15:31:43 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndw/211253174/in/set-72157594234207396/ 15:31:50 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndw/211253361/in/set-72157594234207396/ 15:32:37 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 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 Thank you Norm, that is indeed the picture I wanted 15:34:27 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 s/that is indeed/the first of those is indeed/ 15:35:12 Alex: What happens when some contained step points off to something that it's allowed to access. 15:35:26 Alex: In 4.1.3 we say that we have some fabricated declaration. 15:35:41 Alex: It's going to be a mess to report errors. 15:36:01 Alex: It's not helpful to make this thing self contained. 15:39:10 Norm and Alex go back and forth a bit about what the right answer s. 15:39:13 s/s./is./ 15:40:57 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 Alex: There's an inconsisentency here that bothers me. 15:42:41 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 Alex: Maybe it would be better to draw a picture. 15:44:52 Norm: I propose dropping 4.1.3 for FPWD 15:45:08 Alex: I'd be happy with that, perhaps with the ednote placed somewhere else with more explanation 15:46:53 Resolved, we'll drop 4.1.3 for FPWD 15:47:05 +1 but letting now that the WG will propose shortcut syntax 15:47:13 s/now/know/ 15:48:42 Henry: My feeling is that I don't care if we don't settle this question in this WD either. 15:48:58 Henry: I'd like to see slightly more consistency in the story we tell in parts 2 and 3. 15:49:13 Henry: I'll volunteer to work on a new draft over the weekend. 15:51:34 Proposal: The WG will publish the current draft as the FPWD (with 4.1.3) removed. 15:51:53 So resolved. 15:52:22 ACTION: Norm to request permission to publish 15:53:33 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 Accepted. 15:55:41 Proposed publication date: 28 Sep 2006 15:55:58 Accepted. 15:56:15 Topic: Any other business? 15:56:35 None. 15:56:45 -PGrosso 15:56:46 -Norm 15:56:46 -Ht 15:56:48 -Rui 15:56:49 -AndrewF 15:56:50 -MoZ 15:56:51 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 15:56:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:56:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-xproc-minutes.html Norm 15:56:57 -MSM 15:56:59 -Alex_Milowski 15:57:00 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 15:57:02 Attendees were [IPcaller], Rui, Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso, Ht, MoZ, AndrewF, MSM 15:57:29 PGrosso has left #xproc 15:59:41 Norm -- difference between langspec.xml and ,langspec.xml ? 15:59:57 ,langspec.xml is post-Xinclude 16:00:06 Right 16:00:09 langspec.xml is the editable source 16:00:12 oh, and, uhm, by the way... 16:00:16 It's in DocBook V5. :-) 16:00:26 Shall I create ED-xproc-20060918 ? 16:00:35 Sure 16:00:36 Arghh 16:00:39 sorrry 16:00:45 I'll cope 16:00:53 write words if it comes to that and I'll deal with the markup 16:01:50 Got an SVG original for those pngs anywhere? 16:02:21 You might need http://docbook.org/xml/5.0b7/ 16:02:27 In docs/graphics/*.svg 16:03:05 Norm, will you have the time for typos or do you want to someone to help ? 16:03:06 MSM, you might find http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006Aug/0037.html useful -- one of the attachments is SVG of box + graph cmoponenets 16:03:27 MoZ, if you report 'em, I'll make a pass through. I'll run a spell checker too :-) 16:03:35 alexmilowski has left #xproc 16:03:42 Norm -- SVG -- Excellent! 16:04:10 Norm, i report'em on last version and they're still there ;) 16:04:21 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 moz, sorry. I'll check the archives 16:04:33 Inkscape is what I use 16:06:34 Sigh, cygwin distro stops with docbook 4.4 :-( 16:06:53 How broken will that be? 16:07:10 Bits and bobs. It'll mostly be ok. 16:07:22 Here. I'll quickly build a 4.4 version for you 16:07:28 What about stylesheets? Stop 16:07:42 Easier if you tar me up a DTD and set of stylesheets, or is that hard? 16:07:52 Uhm. 16:08:22 I'll send along the stylesheets and stuff. 16:08:47 Thank you, stop after 5 minutes' work, it's not worth more than that 16:09:01 ok. let me get the transition request finished first :-) 16:10:51 Good news is Richard's xinclude impl works -- gives same result as ,langspec.xml 16:11:35 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 So I'll write a pipeline that Does the Right Thing 16:12:47 :-) 16:14:44 Got Saxon 8? 16:15:10 No: saxon -version 16:15:10 Unknown option -version 16:15:10 SAXON 6.5.4 from Michael Kay 16:15:14 :-( 16:15:38 N'mind, I'll use the 4.4 stylesheets, I'm sure it will be close enough for proofing 16:15:39 Hmm 16:15:51 Ok. 16:16:01 Let me try that, I'll report back 16:16:34 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 Sorry for the trouble.