IRC log of xproc on 2006-10-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:42:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:42:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:42:28 [Norm]
zakim, this will be xproc
14:42:28 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 18 minutes
14:51:47 [rlopes]
rlopes has joined #xproc
14:57:25 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
14:57:26 [Alessandro]
Alessandro has joined #xproc
14:59:32 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
14:59:39 [Zakim]
15:00:21 [Zakim]
15:00:23 [Zakim]
15:00:33 [Zakim]
15:00:33 [rlopes]
Zakim, [IP is Rui
15:00:35 [Zakim]
+Rui; got it
15:00:55 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
15:00:55 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), MoZ
15:01:26 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: XProc WG meets 12 Oct 2006:
15:01:32 [Zakim]
15:01:37 [MoZ]
Zakim, ?? is me
15:01:37 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:01:37 [Norm]
Date: 12 Oct 2006
15:01:37 [Norm]
15:01:37 [Norm]
Meeting: 39
15:01:38 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:01:38 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:01:40 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:01:42 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:03:35 [Zakim]
15:04:20 [MoZ]
Zakim, who is here?
15:04:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PGrosso, Rui, Alessandro_Vernet, Norm, MoZ, Murray_Maloney
15:04:23 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Alessandro, PGrosso, rlopes, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, MoZ
15:04:44 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
15:04:56 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:04:56 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:04:57 [Zakim]
15:04:59 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:05:28 [Zakim]
15:05:29 [richard]
zakim, ? is richard
15:05:32 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:05:47 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:05:54 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:05:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PGrosso, Rui, Alessandro_Vernet, Norm, MoZ, Murray_Maloney, Ht, richard
15:06:20 [Norm]
Present: Paul, Rui, Alessandro, Norm, Mohamed, Murray, Henry, Richard
15:06:40 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:06:40 [Norm]
15:06:44 [Zakim]
15:06:49 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is AndrewF
15:06:52 [Zakim]
+AndrewF; got it
15:06:54 [Norm]
Present: Paul, Rui, Alessandro, Norm, Mohamed, Murray, Henry, Richard, Andrew
15:07:05 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc
15:07:18 [richard]
15:07:38 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-Office
15:07:38 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
15:07:40 [Zakim]
15:07:46 [Norm]
Accepted, with Murray's addition of order of processing per the GRDDL WG
15:07:51 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:07:51 [Norm]
15:08:09 [Norm]
Present: Paul, Rui, Alessandro, Norm, Mohamed, Murray, Henry, Richard, Andrew, Michael
15:08:15 [Norm]
15:08:21 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 19 Oct 2006
15:08:35 [Norm]
No regrets given.
15:08:38 [Norm]
Topic: Review of open action items
15:08:56 [Norm]
Completion of table in requirements document; continued.
15:09:12 [Norm]
New ETA: November, 2006
15:09:42 [Norm]
Topic: Technical agenda
15:09:42 [Norm]
Continued discussion of step naming
15:10:07 [Norm]
s/step naming/scope of step names/
15:10:47 [Norm]
Norm wonders if there was any consensus on scope of step names. None apparent.
15:10:58 [Norm]
Richard observes that the discussion went off on a tangent.
15:11:22 [Norm]
Richard: If you want to limit what ports can be connected, there are two ways: by limiting the scope of the names, and the other is by having other constraints.
15:11:38 [Norm]
...The scope of step names is not necessarily the same as what connections can be made.
15:13:04 [Norm]
Norm wonders about the ambiguity of step names if you don't use scope of names to determine connections.
15:13:25 [Norm]
Richard: Right, you need to determine what names are in scope and say something about ambiguity.
15:14:10 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone want to do it by some other mechanism?
15:14:39 [Norm]
Richard: Scope of step names might not be sufficient in the following case: suppose that there was some construct such that you were allowed to connect to things in your grandparents but not your parents.
15:15:05 [Norm]
...You would want to maintain the names in scope so that they could be passed through, but that would not be the constraint you'd want to use for connections.
15:15:44 [Norm]
Norm: I don't think it would be a problem if such a component was not possible in XProc.
15:16:19 [Norm]
Norm: WRT to scope of names, the only open issue is whether or not the order of siblings matters.
15:17:03 [MSM]
[MSM responds, much delayed, to Norm's question - no objection to trying to solve these problems by describing scope, but whether it works or not depends on how simply we can do it. If we can't describe the scope simply in XML terms, then either we need a different way to solve the problems or we need to change the scope rules.]
15:17:05 [Norm]
Norm: Are there others?
15:17:18 [Norm]
HT: I think the constraints should be stated at a level of abstract syntax.