IRC log of xproc on 2006-12-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

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