IRC log of xproc on 2006-11-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:58:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:58:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:59:33 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:59:33 [Norm]
Date: 16 Nov 2006
15:59:33 [Norm]
15:59:33 [Norm]
Meeting: 44
15:59:33 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:59:34 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:59:36 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:59:52 [Alessandrp]
Alessandrp has joined #xproc
16:00:08 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
16:00:11 [Zakim]
16:00:17 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
16:00:30 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-Office
16:00:30 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
16:00:31 [Zakim]
16:00:50 [MSM]
zakim, who's here?
16:00:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Alex_Milowski, MSM
16:00:51 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alexmilowski, Alessandrp, RRSAgent, richard, Zakim, Norm, ht, MSM
16:00:57 [Zakim]
16:00:58 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
16:00:58 [Zakim]
16:00:59 [Zakim]
16:01:01 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
16:01:07 [Alessandrp]
Zakim, [IP is Alessandrp
16:01:07 [Zakim]
sorry, Alessandrp, I do not recognize a party named '[IP'
16:01:13 [Zakim]
16:01:24 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
16:01:34 [Norm]
Bill Bug?
16:01:44 [Zakim]
16:01:51 [Norm]
zakim, what's the passcode?
16:01:51 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), Norm
16:02:03 [Zakim]
16:02:08 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:02:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Alex_Milowski, MSM, richard, Bill_Bug, PGrosso, Norm
16:02:33 [Norm]
zakim, Bill_Bug is Alessandrp
16:02:34 [Zakim]
+Alessandrp; got it
16:03:12 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:03:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Alex_Milowski, MSM, richard, Alessandrp, PGrosso, Norm
16:04:03 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:04:03 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:04:07 [Zakim]
16:04:55 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
16:05:23 [Zakim]
16:05:29 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is AndrewF
16:05:29 [Zakim]
+AndrewF; got it
16:05:40 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:05:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Alex_Milowski, MSM, richard, Alessandrp, PGrosso, Norm, Ht, AndrewF
16:06:02 [Norm]
Present: Alex, Michael, Richard, Alessadro, Paul, Norm, Henry, Andrew
16:06:05 [Norm]
Regrets: Mohamed
16:06:13 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:06:13 [Norm]
16:07:25 [Norm]
16:07:43 [Norm]
Scribe failed to post 9 Nov minutes; will approve at the next meeting
16:07:56 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 30 Nov 2006 (23 Nov is U.S. Thanksgiving)
16:08:45 [Norm]
Regrets from Micheal, Henry
16:09:29 [Norm]
Topic: Technical agenda
16:09:58 [Norm]
Topic: Review of the 17 Nov draft
16:10:16 [Norm]
Henry: I'm happy
16:11:34 [Norm]
Approved for publication on 17 November.
16:12:05 [Zakim]
16:12:22 [Norm]
16:13:06 [Norm]
Topic: Syntax of for-each/viewport/choose (match/select semantics)
16:14:29 [Norm]
Scribe describes the situation summarized in mail @@@URI HERE@@@
16:14:46 [Norm]
Murray: Maybe we should have moved the attributes off those elements.
16:15:10 [Norm]
Murray: On subordinate elements, for example.
16:15:19 [Norm]
Norm: the other possibility is to move them up.
16:15:47 [Norm]
Henry: I think I prefer to move them up too.
16:16:15 [Norm]
Richard: Is it the case at the moment that input/output are the only thing that declare ports.
16:16:25 [Norm]
Henry: These elements are schizophrenic here.
16:16:44 [Norm]
Richard: Input on viewport is particularly strange on viewport because the select means something else.
16:17:06 [Norm]
Henry: I propose that the editor try it with the attributes on viewport/for-each/etc.
16:18:26 [Norm]
Norm: That would suggest resolving the syntactic ambiguity of foreach/viewport/choose by moving the attributes up.
16:18:50 [Norm]
Murray: Is there anyone who wants to move them down into input.
16:19:03 [Norm]
Michael: Maybe.
16:19:28 [Norm]
Richard: I can see your point, but the place where the magic occurs here is on viewport and putting more elements inside viewport doesn't seem like it's going to help.
16:19:42 [Norm]
...It doesn't have the effect that a select has on a normal input regardless of where it is.
16:19:56 [Norm]
...In this particular case, magic happens with the parts of the document that aren't selected.
16:20:13 [Norm]
Norm: I'm concenred too.
16:20:34 [Norm]
16:20:48 [Norm]
Murray: Would it be reasonable to put a match attribute on viewport and leave the input?
16:20:56 [Norm]
Henry: I've been wondering that myself.
16:21:06 [Norm]
Richard: Would we then disallow the select attribute?
16:21:09 [Norm]
Murray: Why?
16:21:26 [Norm]
Richard: I imagine the viewport match as doing something to the whole document.
16:21:37 [Norm]
Henry: Then the input is really just the input.
16:22:08 [Norm]
Richard: If the input worked just like a normal input, that would be fine. But it ought not to be that the viewport element also specified the match and the internal name of the port.
16:22:51 [Norm]
Henry: We're circling around to where we were at Murray's place.
16:24:33 [Norm]
Norm: So the proposal is to have the input just be a normal input and have two new attributes on viewport to name the magic port and the match attribute.
16:25:25 [Norm]
Norm: In this case, it would be reasonable to have select and match and they would do the obvious thing.
16:25:58 [Norm]
Norm: So would we do the same thing with for-each?
16:26:00 [Norm]
Alex: Sounds good to me.
16:26:12 [Norm]
Murray: So there'd be a double select?
16:26:15 [Norm]
Norm: Yes.
16:27:02 [Norm]
Norm: Does this solve the choose problem?
16:27:04 [Norm]
Henry: No.
16:27:56 [Norm]
Murray: Since there's only one select/match on the outer element, can't we just give the port a magic name?
16:28:30 [Norm]
Norm: Magic name would work because you have to name both the step and the port.
16:28:59 [Norm]
Norm: I'm not see the value in giving a magic name.
16:29:18 [Norm]
Murray: Everywhere else you give a name, you do so on an input element.
16:29:27 [Norm]
Alex: That's a good point. We don't get to name ports.
16:29:50 [Norm]
Norm: I can go with that.
16:30:11 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone have a problem with using a fixed name?
16:30:13 [Norm]
None heard.
16:30:26 [Norm]
Norm: Now we need names.
16:30:29 [ht]
HST is happy with fixed names, not sure I like 'i'
16:30:31 [Norm]
Alex: I'll throw out "current"
16:30:37 [Norm]
Norm: I like current.
16:30:52 [Norm]
Richard: We have various standard components that we've made up names for.
16:31:05 [Norm]
...Identity uses 'input' where others use 'document'.
16:31:26 [Norm]
Richard: I usually imagine that there's a source and a result and a stylesheet off on the side.
16:31:34 [Norm]
Alex: So, in this case also, we're always going to have a document.
16:31:45 [Norm]
...If you took in a document, then I called the port name 'document'
16:31:54 [Norm]
...In viewport and for-each it's always a document, so we could go with 'document'
16:31:59 [ht]
I like 'source' better than 'input', but I also like 'document' when you know it _is_ a document
16:32:37 [Norm]
Richard: My only problem with 'document' is that it doesn't have any parallel with 'result' on output.
16:32:49 [Norm]
Alex: I was thinking we could come back to the general naming question later.
16:33:49 [Norm]
Norm: I think we're talking about the name of the port on p:input
16:34:23 [Norm]
Murray: The GRDDL folks wanted to call things grddl-source and grddl-result. I had to point out that there were really only documents. They might be used by GRDDL, but that's not what they're for.
16:34:35 [Norm]
...I got them to change to input-document and result-document.
16:34:43 [alexmilowski]
Aside: I was confused. I was thinking we were talking about the inner output port name.
16:34:52 [Norm]
...I understand that for some components, we have to differentiate the names.
16:35:36 [Norm]
Alex: I think viewport and for-each should both allow sequences.
16:36:25 [Norm]
Norm: I think we decided that they take single documents.
16:36:33 [Norm]
Alex: At least for-each has to allow sequences.
16:36:41 [Norm]
Richard/Henry: Yes
16:37:08 [Norm]
Henry: It must be the case that there is a way to iterate some subpipeline over a sequence of documents.
16:38:05 [Norm]
Murray: One vote against document.
16:38:21 [Norm]
Norm: Do you have a strong preference for 'input' over 'source'
16:38:28 [Norm]
Murray: Yes.
16:38:37 [Norm]
Richard: That would suggest that the output should be called 'output' not 'result'/
16:38:49 [Norm]
Henry: I have often considered that we ought to call both the primary input and output ports 'primary'
16:40:08 [Norm]
Some discussion of the status quo which outlaws that.
16:43:05 [Norm]
Norm: Murray has proposed the name 'input' for the input port of both for-each and viewport. Any objections?
16:43:16 [Norm]
None heard.
16:43:44 [Norm]
Norm: Alex has proposed the name 'current' for the "magic port" that subpiplines read from inside for-each and viewport. Any objections?
16:44:21 [ht]
16:44:22 [Norm]
Henry: It doesn't speak to me. It makes a lot of sense for XSLT-weenies, but doesn't make any sense elsewhere.
16:44:38 [ht]
Murray suggested "i"
16:45:27 [Norm]
Richard: We could call it "<>" as Perl does
16:45:31 [ht]
16:45:31 [Norm]
Norm laughs maniaccly
16:45:37 [Norm]
16:46:01 [Norm]
Norm: Can everyone live with current for the next draft.
16:46:02 [Norm]
16:46:03 [Norm]
16:46:20 [Norm]
Murray: How about 'this'?
16:46:30 [richard]
16:47:14 [ht]
16:47:48 [Norm]
Norm: The only thing we haven't made progress on is choose, but maybe they're similar enough to be ok.
16:48:25 [Norm]
Alex: Are we going to make these changes for 17 Nov?
16:48:28 [Norm]
Norm: No.
16:48:42 [Norm]
Alex: I think we should try to synchronise the standard components against them.
16:50:28 [Norm]
Norm: If we use input, should we use output.
16:50:28 [Norm]
Murray: It would help our defaulting story if an unspecified name defaulted to some default.
16:50:28 [Norm]
Murray: I could go back and forth between source/result and input/output.
16:50:29 [Norm]
...Maybe source/result is more evocative.
16:51:04 [Norm]
Norm: I'm torn.
16:51:11 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:51:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Alex_Milowski, MSM, richard, Alessandrp, PGrosso, Norm, Ht, AndrewF, Murray_Maloney
16:51:30 [Norm]
Norm: Straw poll: input/output or source/result
16:51:38 [ht]
HST has to make a call on another line, prefers source/result, going on mute
16:52:37 [Norm]
Results: 7 prefer source/result and 2 prefer input/output
16:52:40 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
16:53:12 [Norm]
Norm: I propose we use source/result in the next draft.
16:53:23 [Norm]
Norm: Overriding our previous decision to use 'input'
16:53:33 [Norm]
Richard: Including standard components?
16:53:34 [Norm]
Norm: Yes.
16:53:42 [Norm]
Norm: Any objections?
16:53:45 [Norm]
None heard.
16:54:05 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
16:54:14 [Norm]
16:56:59 [Norm]
16:57:32 [Zakim]
16:57:36 [Zakim]
16:57:38 [Zakim]
16:57:40 [Zakim]
16:57:41 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:57:42 [Zakim]
16:57:43 [Zakim]
16:57:45 [Zakim]
16:57:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MSM, Norm
16:57:47 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:57:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MSM, Norm
16:58:00 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
16:58:10 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
16:58:24 [Norm]
rrsagent, please make logs world-visible
16:58:34 [Norm]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:58:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:16:23 [Zakim]
17:16:33 [Zakim]
17:16:35 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
17:16:37 [Zakim]
Attendees were Alex_Milowski, MSM, richard, PGrosso, Norm, Alessandrp, Ht, AndrewF, Murray_Maloney
17:16:46 [MSM]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:16:46 [Zakim]
apparently XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended, MSM
17:16:47 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Alessandrp, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, ht, MSM
19:33:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
19:34:06 [Norm]
rrsagent, bye
19:34:06 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items