15:57:03 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 15:57:03 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/12/07-xproc-irc 15:57:12 Chair: Henry S. Thompson 15:57:17 PGrosso has joined #xproc 15:57:27 Call: XML Processing Model WG telcon 15:57:38 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 15:57:46 ScribeNick: ht 15:58:01 Agenda+ Attendance 15:58:50 Agenda+ Review of Agenda 15:59:01 zakim, this will be XML_Proc 15:59:01 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, ht 15:59:08 zakim, this will be XProc 15:59:08 ok, ht; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute 16:00:23 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 16:00:24 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 16:00:28 +[ArborText] 16:00:41 Alessandro has joined #xproc 16:00:53 Zakim, what is the code ? 16:00:53 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), MoZ 16:01:02 +Alex_Milowski 16:01:06 -PGrosso 16:01:07 +PGrosso 16:01:30 richard has joined #xproc 16:01:53 +??P41 16:01:54 zakim, ? is me 16:01:54 +richard; got it 16:02:22 agenda+ accept previous minutes 16:02:35 agenda+ next meeting 16:02:49 +??P35 16:02:56 agenda+ Subordination 16:03:10 zakim, please call ht-781 16:03:10 ok, ht; the call is being made 16:03:14 +Ht 16:03:25 AndrewF has joined #xproc 16:03:27 +[IPcaller] 16:03:29 Zakim, [IP is Alessandro 16:03:31 +Alessandro; got it 16:04:22 Apologies: Norman Walsh 16:05:09 +??P43 16:05:16 zakim, ? is AndrewF 16:05:16 +AndrewF; got it 16:05:53 Zakim, who is on the call? 16:05:55 On the phone I see PGrosso, Alex_Milowski, richard, rlopes, Ht, Alessandro, AndrewF 16:06:08 +??P44 16:06:16 s/Norman Walsh/Norman Walsh, Michael Sperberg-McQueen/ 16:06:21 Zakim, who is on the call? 16:06:21 On the phone I see PGrosso, Alex_Milowski, richard, rlopes, Ht, Alessandro, AndrewF, ??P44 16:06:32 Zakim, who is on the call? 16:06:32 On the phone I see PGrosso, Alex_Milowski, richard, rlopes, Ht, Alessandro, AndrewF, moz 16:06:48 zakim, agenda- 16:06:48 I can only remove agenda items by number 16:06:52 zakim, agenda- 1 16:06:52 agendum 1, Attendance, dropped 16:06:56 zakim, agenda- 2 16:06:56 agendum 2, Review of Agenda, dropped 16:07:12 zakim, agenda? 16:07:12 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 16:07:13 3. accept previous minutes [from ht] 16:07:14 4. next meeting [from ht] 16:07:17 5. Subordination [from ht] 16:08:18 zakim, next agendum 16:08:18 agendum 3. "accept previous minutes" taken up [from ht] 16:08:34 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006Nov/0080.html 16:09:03 AGREED: Minutes of 30 November accepted 16:09:07 zakim, next agendum 16:09:09 agendum 3 was just opened, ht 16:09:50 zakim, next agendum 16:09:50 agendum 4. "next meeting" taken up [from ht] 16:10:09 Next meeting will be 14 December, HST apologies 16:10:19 zakim, take up agendum 5 16:10:20 agendum 5. "Subordination" taken up [from ht] 16:11:03 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006Nov/0081.html 16:12:34 MoZ: Main thing of the proposal was to separate source specification into three subordinate elements: external, internal and here 16:13:35 ... Interesting point is that in each case the attributes are required 16:13:54 ... Also, in the case of external, we could allow fallback to 16:14:28 zakim, disconnect ht 16:14:29 Ht is being disconnected 16:14:30 -Ht 16:14:42 zakim, please call ht-781 16:14:43 ok, ht; the call is being made 16:14:44 +Ht 16:15:35 RT: Against a fallback mechanism -- we already have conditional processing and failure handling 16:15:50 ... so I'd prefer to consider the proposal w/o that 16:16:22 HST: We'll separate that -- discussion of the basic subordination proposal: 16:16:45 RT: I like the orthogonality, but it's even more verbose than our current verbose proposal 16:17:08 ... I would have liked 16:17:26 ... We already have one level of nesting, Murray's proposal would move us to two 16:17:40 ... I'm worried we will need pages for even a simple pipeline 16:17:55 ... XML is just not a good syntax for programming languages 16:18:39 HST: Verbosity is a problem -- first impressions matter. . . 16:19:07 ... We don't want people to react as they did to XML Schema. . . 16:19:55 ... Maybe we should start the defaulting discussion 16:20:14 AM: I like it, some names aside 16:20:55 ... It's good for tools, it's good for annotation 16:21:09 ... We're already verbose, this doesn't make things much worse 16:21:36 +Murray_Maloney 16:22:48 PG: Don't have a strong feeling - some worry about verbosity - if this is the right language we'll make it work 16:23:21 ... If the more verbose solution is cleaner then I'm in favor 16:24:38 RL: Verbosity is an issue, but not against it as long as it's not too verbose 16:26:04 HT: Concerned about verbosity, but might be okay if we can get shorter via defaulting or something. 16:26:29 HT: Wants the common things to be easy to specify and not too verbose. 16:27:18 AM: Using subordinate elements allows you to construct a sequence of documents, which is a plus: new functionality 16:27:48 HST: Yes, but not obvious we have any such use cases. . . 16:28:05 RT: Even a mixture of and . . . 16:28:17 AM: I think it's easy to come up with use cases 16:29:08 AV: Worried about verbosity, thinking about writing this kind of hurts. Fine with one level of nesting, but not happy with defaulting. 16:29:34 ... Worried that we'll be unable to see what the pipeline means just by looking at it: where does data come from 16:30:28 AF: Not against verbosity as such, but worried about the impact on people. I'd prefer a simpler syntax in V1 16:31:00 MoZ: I'm very concerned by the verbosity: 16:32:36 That's an excellent point... too many attributes cause their own verbosity and easy-of-use problems 16:32:57 q+ 16:33:01 ... Currently p:input has 4 different models, and it's hard to understand the allowed co-occurences for beginners 16:33:08 ... also hard for tools 16:33:27 ... This is in tension with the verbosity 16:33:38 ... I also like the sequence of documents support 16:34:05 ... Also, easier to add documentation with the extra element 16:34:37 ... Whereas currently we can't because of confusion with a 'here' document 16:34:42 ack alex 16:35:33 AM: Natural conflict between expressiveness and conciseness in the XML world 16:35:57 ... RELAX has a compact syntax to address this issue 16:36:27 ... Maybe we should consider a non-XML format or a mixture as per XQuery 16:36:51 ... A well-understood grammar is the right foundation, shouldn't tackle verbosity right now 16:37:36 RT: Verbosity and defaulting aren't mutually exclusive -- even with a compact syntax you would want to default the primary connection between adjacent steps 16:38:11 HST: I'm very tempted to take RT's suggestion for secondary inputs, and allow you to write 16:38:33 ... 16:39:57 ... Only have to use subordinated elements (one or two) if you were computing the secondaries -- quite rare 16:41:33 HST: The subordination story is possible because we moved the magic port attribute onto e.g. the 16:41:49 RT: Wrong, we gave it a fixed name 16:43:43 MM: Moz's point can be restated as "Moving to my proposal allows any schema language to express our grammar, instead of only one" 16:44:07 ... Sympathetic to desire for conciseness, but that just means we shouldn't be using XML 16:44:20 ... Ask RT to summarize what the roadblocks are 16:44:41 RT: No roadblocks, but verbosity is an issue (as well as fallback) 16:44:42 Calification: I'm not worried about verbosity. We're already verbose. 16:45:07 s/Calification/Clarification/ 16:45:38 HST: Straw poll: Shall we ask the editor to draw up a candidate draft encorporating MM's proposal? 16:47:27 In favor: 1111111 16:47:38 Opposed: 16:47:51 I was not asleep--I concur. 16:48:03 ACTION to NDW: draw up a candidate draft encorporating MM's proposal. 16:48:23 Topic: Fallback 16:49:11 RT: Worried that it's extending the control structures by stealth 16:49:48 ... We have mechanisms in the language for handling errors, so you can already catch an error in fetching a URI 16:50:14 MM: This is just an inexpensive (less verbose) way to handle a common error 16:51:07 ... you'd use it as a debugging mechanism 16:51:21 q+ 16:51:37 RT: It's not a bug in your pipeline as such -- you _want_ to see the error 16:52:03 MM: During development, you may want to test it w/o actually having the URLs in place 16:52:15 RT: Dubious about that. . . 16:53:05 ... If you're not going to leave it during production, you could just start with a and _replace_ it with an 16:53:18 ... I don't know any programming language that work like this 16:53:56 HST: Suspend this, take it to email 16:54:22 Topic: Element and attribute names for subordination proposal 16:55:06 MM: Could accept portref instead of internal 16:55:58 AM: I don't like 'load', mild preference for 'document' over 'external' 16:56:18 RT: Would like 'pipe' instead of 'internal' 16:57:08 AGREED: Leave this to editor's discretion, but all are invited to argue in email for their preferred set of names 16:57:25 HST: Any other business? 16:57:59 MoZ: What about 'name' vs. 'port' for input? 16:58:18 MM, RT: Still open, not affected by our decision 16:58:30 -Murray_Maloney 16:58:39 MoZ: I would like to see documentation added explicitly at some point soon. . . 16:58:41 -Alex_Milowski 16:58:59 -PGrosso 16:59:04 -rlopes 16:59:06 -Ht 16:59:08 -moz 16:59:09 -richard 16:59:10 -AndrewF 16:59:10 -Alessandro 16:59:12 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 16:59:13 Attendees were PGrosso, Alex_Milowski, richard, rlopes, Ht, [IPcaller], Alessandro, AndrewF, moz, Murray_Maloney 16:59:17 PGrosso has left #xproc 16:59:22 RRSAgent, make logs world-visible 16:59:37 Zakim, bye 16:59:37 Zakim has left #xproc 16:59:49 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:59:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/12/07-xproc-minutes.html ht 16:59:57 RRSAgent, bye 16:59:57 I see no action items