IRC log of xproc on 2006-12-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:34:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:34:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:34:24 [MoZ]
Zakim, this will be xproc
15:34:24 [Zakim]
ok, MoZ; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 26 minutes
15:34:34 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
15:34:34 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), MoZ
15:44:02 [rlopes]
rlopes has joined #xproc
15:53:54 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
15:56:27 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:58:20 [Norm]
rrsagent, pointer
15:58:20 [RRSAgent]
15:58:23 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:58:23 [Norm]
Date: 21 Dec 2006
15:58:23 [Norm]
15:58:23 [Norm]
Meeting: 48
15:58:23 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:58:24 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:58:28 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:59:11 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:59:11 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:59:13 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:59:14 [Zakim]
15:59:20 [Alessandro]
Alessandro has joined #xproc
15:59:38 [Zakim]
15:59:45 [rlopes]
Zakim, [IP is me
15:59:45 [Zakim]
+rlopes; got it
15:59:46 [Zakim]
16:00:08 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:00:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ht, rlopes, Norm
16:00:29 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
16:00:42 [Zakim]
16:01:17 [Zakim]
16:01:21 [richard]
zakim, ? is richard
16:01:21 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
16:01:23 [Zakim]
16:01:26 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.404.aaaa
16:01:43 [Norm]
zakim, aaaa is amilowski
16:01:43 [Zakim]
+amilowski; got it
16:01:47 [Alessandro]
zakim, ? is Alessandro
16:01:49 [Zakim]
+Alessandro; got it
16:01:51 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
16:02:00 [Norm]
zakim, amilowski is alexmilowski
16:02:00 [Zakim]
+alexmilowski; got it
16:02:10 [Zakim]
16:02:28 [alexmilowski]
So, how do I register my phone # again ?
16:03:01 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
16:03:07 [PGrosso]
16:03:09 [Norm]
16:03:26 [Zakim]
16:03:32 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is AndrewF
16:03:32 [Zakim]
+AndrewF; got it
16:04:15 [Zakim]
16:04:35 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Henry, Rui, Paul, Richard, Alex, Alessandro, Mohamed, Andrew, Murray
16:04:54 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:04:54 [Norm]
16:05:00 [Norm]
16:05:04 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
16:05:05 [Norm]
16:05:09 [Norm]
16:05:14 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 4 Jan 2007?
16:05:46 [Norm]
The telcon of 28 Dec 2006 is cancelled.
16:05:49 [Norm]
16:05:51 [richard]
we're not sober in Scotland between christmas and new year
16:06:05 [Norm]
Topic: Review of open action items
16:06:10 [Norm]
A-13-01: continued
16:06:23 [Norm]
A-45-03: continued
16:06:27 [Norm]
A-46-01: completed
16:06:28 [Norm]
16:06:44 [Norm]
Topic: Technical agenda
16:06:56 [Norm]
Discussion of the nested elements draft
16:07:00 [Norm]
16:07:10 [ht]
zakim, disconnect ht
16:07:10 [Zakim]
Ht is being disconnected
16:07:11 [Zakim]
16:07:16 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:07:16 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:07:18 [Zakim]
16:07:23 [Norm]
Norm: Murray, what do you think?
16:07:43 [Norm]
Murray: I would have kept document and inline together, but that's ok.
16:08:20 [Norm]
Richard: I'm very ambivalent. Its main advantage is that it separates things, so I'm in favor of 3 instead of 2.
16:08:50 [Norm]
Alex: Are we going to allow construction of sequences?
16:09:19 [Norm]
Norm: I don't think we've decided that question.
16:09:23 [Norm]
Alex: I really like nested elements.
16:09:25 [Norm]
Henry: So do I.
16:09:41 [Norm]
Henry: I'm not fussed about the syntax because the defaults are going to make it all go away.
16:10:18 [Norm]
Norm: I'm ambivalent too. It's cleaner in some senses, but it sure obfuscates the written out version to my mind.
16:11:10 [Norm]
Alessandro: it looks nice from the perspective of someone who reads the specification or writes it, but I have the feeling that it's going to be different for people who have to read or write pipelines. It's a very heavy syntax.
16:11:19 [Norm]
...I'm not sure that what we gain is really worth the cost.
16:11:26 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:11:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ht, rlopes, Norm, PGrosso, richard, Alessandro, alexmilowski, MoZ, AndrewF, Murray_Maloney
16:11:56 [Norm]
Mohamed: In fact, I like this proposal because it's better, I think, looking forward to a V2 or something later.
16:12:17 [Norm]
...When we agree the defaulting story, maybe the point about the syntax will go away.
16:12:31 [Norm]
...But we need a good proposal around the defaulting story.
16:13:01 [Norm]
...Also, I wanted to say that this proposal maybe we can make some things clearer. The fact that we now see the name "pipe" is something very interesting for catching the big picture.
16:13:41 [richard]
(Note to editor - the "specified inline" section still contains an attribute-syntax p:input along with the p:inline input)
16:14:07 [Norm]
Paul: I think it reads better in the spec, but I haven't tried to write pipelines. So I thought Alessandro's point was an interesting one.
16:14:24 [Norm]
...On the whole, I'm leaning toward this implementation of Murray's ideas. But that's only a gut feeling.
16:14:52 [Norm]
Rui: I feel the same way that Mohamed does. We need a strong defaulting story.
16:15:32 [Norm]
Paul: What's the downside of this proposal, other than verbosity.
16:16:01 [Norm]
Norm: I think the downside is only the verbosity.
16:16:17 [Norm]
Murray: But it does have the advantage that you can explicitly make a sequence.
16:17:04 [Norm]
Mohamed: This proposal makes it easier to document inputs and outputs, I think that's an advantage.
16:17:33 [Norm]
Henry: I think it's also easier to write authoring tools that allow you to do the right thing because it's easier to write simple document definitions.
16:18:22 [Norm]
Henry: I mean document definitions without co-constraints.
16:18:33 [Norm]
Murray: I have a potential modification that might make things easier.
16:19:02 [Norm]
Murray: The input and/or the output element could have the step and port attributes on them, if they're used on that element then they would refer to the step and port. Then you could write anything in the one element.
16:19:18 [Norm]
...However, you could use the subordinate elements if you wanted to.
16:19:53 [Norm]
Norm: I agree we could do that, but I'm strongly opposed. I'd much prefer to have one way to do it.
16:20:33 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:20:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ht, rlopes, Norm, PGrosso, richard, Alessandro, alexmilowski, MoZ, AndrewF, Murray_Maloney
16:20:49 [Norm]
Staw poll: do you prefer the attribute syntax or the nested element syntax?
16:21:07 [Norm]
16:21:56 [Norm]
Results: 9-to-1 in favor of nested elements.
16:22:19 [Norm]
Proposal: We will adopt the nested element syntax going forward.
16:22:27 [Norm]
16:23:42 [Norm]
Mohamed: In the alternate draft, you've named an input for choose/when
16:24:17 [Norm]
...Now there's something to choose between. If we name, we have to default all the names, or we have to skip the surrounding input and just put the pipe or document.
16:25:29 [Norm]
Norm summarizes the situation with respect to choose/when
16:26:14 [Norm]
Norm: If I understand Mohamed's proposal correctly, he's saying that the p:input is unnecessary.
16:26:31 [Norm]
Norm: I agree that syntactically it's unnecessary, but I'd prefer to keep the p:input.
16:27:09 [Norm]
zakim, who's making noise?
16:27:22 [Zakim]
Norm, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: richard (49%), MoZ (24%)
16:27:22 [Norm]
Richard: if you put the inputs on the whens, do you not need one on the choose?
16:27:25 [Norm]
Norm: That's right.
16:27:30 [Norm]
zakim, mute moz
16:27:30 [Zakim]
MoZ should now be muted
16:27:44 [MoZ]
16:27:46 [Norm]
16:27:46 [MoZ]
16:28:03 [Norm]
no worries
16:28:35 [Norm]
Richard: Maybe there should be a test subelement that has something in it
16:28:44 [Norm]
...The test is like the input element in that it requires a source.
16:29:05 [Norm]
...It would be natural to make the test a subelement as well.
16:29:19 [Norm]
Norm: So instead of having p:input, we could have p:xpath-context?
16:29:47 [Norm]
Henry: I think I like that better.
16:30:12 [Norm]
Richard: I'm proposing that p:when would have no attributes and an optional p:test element with an attribute that was the test.
16:31:37 [Norm]
I think this is what Henry (and I) had in mind:
16:31:40 [Norm]
<p:when select="xpath">
16:31:40 [Norm]
16:31:40 [Norm]
16:31:40 [Norm]
16:31:40 [Norm]
16:31:44 [Norm]
I think this is what Richard had in mind:
16:31:46 [MoZ]
Zakim, unmute me
16:31:46 [Zakim]
MoZ should no longer be muted
16:31:49 [Norm]
16:31:49 [Norm]
<p:test select="xpath">
16:31:49 [Norm]
16:31:49 [Norm]
16:31:51 [Norm]
16:31:53 [Norm]
16:32:19 [Norm]
Murray: If there's a when element and it has a subordinate test element, then I can move them around with cut-and-paste.
16:33:22 [Norm]
Mohamed: That's what I proposed in email.
16:33:57 [Norm]
Murray: I think you really do want a p:input on p:choose.
16:34:23 [Norm]
...On p:input there's a select attribute, and I might want that for testing.
16:35:41 [MoZ]
q+ to add that adding p:input in top of choose or when with a name would permits the big mistake to refer to it
16:35:56 [Norm]
Richard: So you can factor the conditional.
16:36:16 [Norm]
...If you put a select on the choose, then it means that the tests in the whens will operate on the selected part of the document.
16:37:04 [Norm]
ack MoZ
16:37:04 [Zakim]
MoZ, you wanted to add that adding p:input in top of choose or when with a name would permits the big mistake to refer to it
16:37:47 [Norm]
Mohamed: Putting a input on the top of the choose/when will make it a mistake to refer to this name inside the when.
16:37:59 [ht]
16:38:03 [Norm]
...I think giving an input with a name, is something which we have to take care about.
16:38:06 [Norm]
ack ht
16:38:21 [Norm]
Henry: I want things to be as simple as possible when they're fully defaulted.
16:38:50 [Norm]
...I think the primary input will often be what you want for both the test and the input. I really want the test attribute on the when elements.
16:39:05 [Norm]
Norm: I agree that that's what users will expect.
16:39:40 [Norm]
Richard: I think this argues in favor of what Murray suggested earlier, allowing the attributes to be hoisted up.
16:39:45 [Norm]
...Then this would just be analagous to that.
16:40:13 [Norm]
Henry: What is the argument in favor of a nested test element, aside from cut and paste?
16:40:36 [Norm]
Richard: I didn't like the nested input element because the test amounts to being a combination of an attribute and a subelement which seems a bad idea.
16:40:56 [Norm]
Henry: I guess I think familiarity is more important than that locality.
16:41:10 [Norm]
Richard: I'm not saying I agree with Murray's suggestion, I just pointed to an advantage of it.
16:41:46 [Norm]
Norm: With my chair's hat off, I am really strongly in favor of having exactly one way to do something. Having more than one way just complicates things.
16:41:52 [Norm]
Murray: I disagree with that assertion.
16:41:57 [ht]
q+ to agree with Norm
16:42:11 [Norm]
Richard: I think if we had a consistent story about what kinds of abbreviations you could do that that might not be the case.
16:42:27 [Norm]
...It would be a simple enough story that it would not be confusing.
16:42:59 [Norm]
Henry: I agree with Norm and I disagree with Richard. Trying to explain the circumstances under which hoisting is or is not allowed will be much more confusing and have benefit only in marginal cases.
16:43:34 [Norm]
Murray: Not that I want to push this idea, but if I understand this, then the vast majority of people will. What we're talking about here is SGML's conref.
16:44:21 [MoZ]
Zakim, mute me
16:44:21 [Zakim]
MoZ should now be muted
16:44:23 [Norm]
Murray: One of the difficulties I had with the p:input element before was that we had co-constraints and optional input. I'm suggesting here that we give primacy to the p:pipe attributes. Don't allow an href up there, only allow for pipes.
16:44:45 [ht]
q- ht
16:45:56 [Zakim]
16:46:04 [Norm]
Norm: I think putting source/port up there but not href would be very strange.
16:46:19 [Norm]
Henry: What about a straw poll?
16:46:49 [Norm]
Henry: I think the question is between what the current alternate draft and the two variations Norm typed in earlier.
16:47:04 [Norm]
...There's a separate question about what kind of promotions are possible.
16:48:59 [Norm]
1. What the current alternate draft says, or
16:48:59 [Norm]
2. Nested context, with test on p:when
16:48:59 [Norm]
<p:when test="xpath">
16:48:59 [Norm]
16:48:59 [Norm]
16:49:00 [Norm]
16:49:02 [Norm]
16:49:04 [Norm]
16:49:06 [Norm]
3. Nested context, with the test on the subordinate element
16:49:08 [Norm]
16:49:10 [Norm]
<p:test test="xpath">
16:49:12 [Norm]
16:49:14 [Norm]
16:49:16 [Norm]
16:49:18 [Norm]
16:51:49 [Norm]
For 1:
16:51:50 [Norm]
<p:when test="xpath">
16:51:50 [Norm]
<p:input port="source">
16:51:50 [Norm]
16:51:50 [Norm]
16:51:50 [Norm]
16:53:23 [Norm]
Henry: Current proposal says, there's a distinguished port called 'source' for when elements and you use that port to establish the context for testing.
16:53:29 [Norm]
16:54:11 [Norm]
Henry: I proposed a slight change which says, "let's not confuse things by using the port named source, let's have a distinguished element, e.g., p:xpath-context"
16:54:42 [Norm]
Henry: The third proposal is to say, take the test attribute off the p:when and put it on the subordinate element which still would wrap p:inline|p:document|p:pipe
16:54:59 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:54:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ht, rlopes, Norm, PGrosso, richard, Alessandro, alexmilowski, AndrewF, Murray_Maloney
16:56:09 [Norm]
Results: 6-to-2 for the status quo with one abstention.
16:56:10 [Zakim]
16:56:31 [Norm]
Norm: Let's do this on the list so we can reach a decision on 4 Jan 2007.
16:56:47 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
16:57:06 [Norm]
Murray: We've been hanging fire on the core components list, it'd be nice if we could make progress.
16:57:20 [Norm]
Norm: I suggest that we try to do some of that in email too.
16:58:01 [Norm]
Murray: Review of the current draft and suggestions for any changes.
16:59:08 [Norm]
Norm: I suggest that we aim for another public WD on 26 Jan.
16:59:19 [Norm]
16:59:35 [Zakim]
16:59:36 [Zakim]
16:59:37 [Zakim]
16:59:38 [Zakim]
16:59:38 [Zakim]
16:59:40 [Zakim]
16:59:40 [Zakim]
16:59:42 [Zakim]
16:59:43 [Zakim]
16:59:45 [Norm]
rrsagent, make logs world visible
16:59:45 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make logs world visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:59:50 [Zakim]
16:59:50 [Norm]
rrsagent, please make logs world visible
16:59:50 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'please make logs world visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:59:51 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:59:52 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ht, [IPcaller], rlopes, Norm, PGrosso, richard, +1.415.404.aaaa, Alessandro, alexmilowski, MoZ, AndrewF, Murray_Maloney
17:00:06 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
17:00:13 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:00:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:00:25 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
17:01:03 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
17:01:08 [Norm]
Well hurry the heck up, RRSAgent
17:01:45 [MoZ]
Norm, you miss regrets from MSM
17:01:49 [Norm]
17:02:05 [Norm]
Regrets: Michael
17:02:10 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:02:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:03:11 [Norm]
rrsagent is taking his sweet time about it
17:03:32 [MSM]
You know how sometimes you can see, before it happens, that something is about to go terribly wrong?
17:03:42 [Norm]
Oh dear. Yes?
17:03:49 [MSM]
I thought the fact that I work from home would mean that the snowfall here wouldn't really affect me.
17:04:13 [Norm]
Are you getting the same storm that's drop 30" on Denver?
17:04:16 [MSM]
But it made the dogs edgy, which led to altercations, which delayed things much more than I would have expected.
17:04:18 [Norm]
17:04:41 [MSM]
Same storm, yes, but only 6-9 inches here, more in mountains
17:05:17 [MSM]
in any case, I blame the snow for my absence today.
17:05:24 [Norm]
17:05:27 [Norm]
rrsagent, pointer
17:05:27 [RRSAgent]
17:05:47 [Norm]
short summary: we adopted the alternate draft
17:14:25 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: XProc WG: See you next year! Next telcon: 4 Jan 2007