IRC log of xproc on 2007-03-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:53:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:53:54 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:54:33 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:54:33 [Norm]
Date: 1 Mar 2007
15:54:33 [Norm]
15:54:33 [Norm]
Meeting number: 57, T-minus 35 weeks
15:54:33 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:54:34 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:54:36 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:55:31 [MoZ]
Hi Norm, you never use the Agenda function of RRSAgent ?
15:55:37 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:55:51 [Norm]
I've tried occasionally, but found it inconvenient
15:56:20 [Alessandro]
Alessandro has joined #xproc
15:58:58 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:59:56 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
16:00:03 [Zakim]
16:00:03 [Zakim]
16:00:41 [Zakim]
16:00:47 [Zakim]
16:00:55 [rlopes]
rlopes has joined #xproc
16:01:13 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:01:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso, Alessandro_Vernet
16:01:32 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-Office
16:01:32 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
16:01:33 [Zakim]
16:01:46 [Zakim]
16:01:49 [MSM]
zakim, please mute me
16:01:49 [Zakim]
16:01:50 [Zakim]
MSM should now be muted
16:02:00 [rlopes]
Zakim, [ is me
16:02:00 [Zakim]
+rlopes; got it
16:02:02 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
16:02:09 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:02:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Alex_Milowski, Norm, PGrosso, Alessandro_Vernet, MSM (muted), rlopes, Murray_Maloney
16:02:42 [Zakim]
16:02:50 [Zakim]
16:02:53 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is AndrewF
16:02:53 [Zakim]
+AndrewF; got it
16:04:46 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:04:47 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:04:49 [Zakim]
16:05:10 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Alex, Paul, Alessandro, Michael, Rui, Murray, Mohamed, Andrew, Henry
16:05:10 [Norm]
Regrets: Richard
16:05:37 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:05:37 [Norm]
16:05:42 [Norm]
16:05:47 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
16:05:47 [Norm]
16:05:55 [Norm]
16:06:01 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 8 Mar 2007
16:06:29 [Norm]
Mohamed gives regrets
16:06:43 [Norm]
Topic: New draft
16:06:56 [Norm]
Norm: I published a new draft yesterday.
16:07:07 [Norm]
Norm summarizes.
16:07:24 [alexmilowski]
If I cut out, my DSL connection is flakey today and all I have is VOIP...
16:08:08 [Norm]
Norm: There's no reasonable diff.
16:08:17 [Zakim]
16:10:50 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-Office
16:10:50 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
16:10:51 [Zakim]
16:14:39 [alexmilowski]
16:15:33 [Norm]
Norm outlines the current dichotomy between QName and NCName and p:pipeline and everwhere else.
16:15:47 [Norm]
Henry: We never need to refer to p:pipelines yes?
16:16:04 [Norm]
Norm: No, the p:pipe elements have to point to them.
16:16:17 [Norm]
Henry: That's inside a pipeline, so we'd like that to be an NCName.
16:16:42 [Norm]
Norm: We also need to be able to refer to pipelines.
16:16:58 [Norm]
Henry: My vague memory was that we won't have a run-pipeline component in V1.
16:18:14 [Norm]
Norm: My understanding was that we wouldn't provide a mechanism for running a dynamically constructed pipeline but that we would provide a mechanism for running static pipelines from libraries
16:18:37 [Norm]
Alex: I don't see why we made the names NCNames. It should be just like the names of templates in XSLT.
16:19:41 [Norm]
Henry: The major confusion factor that I've observed in that context is that you have to worry about names getting captured by the default namespace declarations.
16:21:11 [Norm]
Alex: It should be up to the user. If you don't want to use QNames, you don't have to.
16:22:11 [Norm]
Norm: Agenda item for next week: how to call static pipelines in an imported library.
16:22:41 [Norm]
Henry: If you've defined a named pipe, then you should be able to invoke it by writing its name as a start tag in a subpipeline.
16:24:33 [Norm]
Topic: Parameters
16:25:07 [MSM]
zakim, please mute me
16:25:07 [Zakim]
MSM should now be muted
16:25:58 [Norm]
Norm: The problem as I see it is what, if anything, we do about the case of parameter for step invokation vs parameters for the invoked component.
16:28:38 [Norm]
Henry: Saxon 8, for example, distinguishes between options and parameters.
16:29:23 [Norm]
Norm: Jeni brings in lists of strings which I'd like to overlook for the moment.
16:29:26 [Norm]
Alex: What we have now is good enough.
16:31:22 [Norm]
Alex: Our current parameter story is simple and I don't think we need anything else. We can say which things are significant to the configuration of the step.
16:32:20 [Norm]
Norm: Works for me.
16:33:47 [Norm]
Norm: Does anyone think there's anything wrong with Alex's approach?
16:33:57 [Norm]
Henry: I haven't read the thread, but it sounds right.
16:34:29 [Alessandro]
16:34:32 [Norm]
ack Alessandro
16:35:01 [Norm]
Alessandro: I think I agree. But I still think that Jeni's answer has some merit. In particular, I like the third proposal.
16:35:42 [Norm]
Norm: What problem is she solving?
16:36:15 [Norm]
Alessandro: Well, it addresses the case of different classes of parameters. XSLT has two classes, but other components might have more classes.
16:36:58 [alexmilowski]
16:37:00 [ht]
16:38:43 [alexmilowski]
it is the open content model for documentation problem...
16:38:50 [alexmilowski]
That's the problem.
16:39:04 [Norm]
Norm: I'm worried about determining the difference between subpipelines and parameters.
16:39:12 [Norm]
Henry: We've said that user-defined steps are atomic.
16:39:23 [alexmilowski]
e.g. the component's element can have ignorable children ...
16:39:45 [ht]
zakim, mute ht
16:39:45 [Zakim]
Ht should now be muted
16:40:05 [MoZ]
alexmilowski, p:documentation
16:40:16 [Norm]
16:40:18 [Norm]
ack Alessandro
16:40:22 [Norm]
ack alexmilowski
16:40:37 [Norm]
Alex: The problem is our steps have an open content model in order to allow documentation.
16:41:32 [Norm]
Alex: For these crazy components that have all these problems with weird lists and values, this is XML, you can pass those as an *input*
16:42:25 [Norm]
ack ht
16:42:25 [ht]
ack ht
16:42:46 [Norm]
Henry: That's a helpful observation. It almost leads me back to the minimalist position to which I'd originally been inclined.
16:43:33 [Norm]
...First I was going to say that my understanding of Jeni's use case is that it relies on sub-symbol spaces. But as Alex observed earlier, namespaces are the XML solution to this problme.
16:43:43 [Norm]
16:44:08 [alexmilowski]
Oh... no... we need QNames on parameters for simple setting of things like XSLT parameters...
16:44:15 [Alessandro]
16:44:23 [Norm]
Henry: I didn't notice that parameters were named with QNames. I think we should rely on here documents.
16:45:20 [Norm]
Murray: There are options that I type on the command line, like -o, and then there's information that we pass into the application. It's going to use that information to do its job. A stylesheet is one example
16:45:40 [Norm]
...Although we've talked about competing name tokens, it seems to me that they're competing in different environments.
16:45:59 [Norm]
...It seems as though the conflict is happening in two different environments.
16:46:33 [ht]
Whew! saxon uses {uri}localname=value to bind parameters in namespaces to values on the command line
16:47:46 [ht]
MoZ just said he likes p:option and p:parameter, and I think that's worth thinking about
16:47:48 [Norm]
Norm: We don't have a mechanism for dynamically generating a document.
16:48:36 [ht]
<p:parameter name="xsl:initial-mode" select="$p:initialMode"/>
16:48:59 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
16:49:12 [Norm]
Henry: I think the options of the builtin component should be in the pipeline namespace or in the appropriate namespace for the component.
16:50:18 [ht]
Yeah, I guess I agree -- we're calling it p:xslt, not xsl:doit. . .
16:52:37 [Norm]
Norm: I think it would be fair to just not pass the parameters in the p: namespace through
16:52:42 [Norm]
Henry: I'm not sure about thta.
16:53:06 [Norm]
Norm: Well, it's not clear that there's a right answer.
16:53:34 [MoZ]
16:53:39 [Norm]
ack Alessandro
16:53:55 [Norm]
Alessandro: We could use prefixes just like I outlined in email.
16:54:35 [Norm]
Henry: I think namespaces are the prefixing mechanism to use in XML.
16:54:56 [Norm]
...I come back to the other proposal that we have p:option and p:parameter.
16:55:41 [Zakim]
16:55:48 [Norm]
Norm: Can mortals be expect to tell the difference?
16:56:07 [Norm]
Henry: But few components have options so it doesn't seem to be a problem.
16:56:20 [Norm]
Murray: We just have to explain it in the spec.
16:56:32 [Zakim]
16:56:34 [alexmilowski]
query does too...
16:56:38 [alexmilowski]
xquery that is...
16:56:39 [Norm]
Henry: Only XSLT, of all the components we've discussed so far, makes this distinction.
16:56:43 [Zakim]
16:57:22 [Zakim]
16:57:29 [Norm]
ack moz
16:58:02 [Norm]
Mohamed: Jeni's remark was about configuration parameter vs. parameter that was difficult to distinguish, but maybe option and parameter will be more obvious.
16:58:20 [Norm]
...I think it would be interesting to go further.
16:59:14 [Norm]
Norm: It seems like we're coming to consensus that we should use p:option and p:parameter.
16:59:53 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm will type up a proposal for p:option and p:parameter.
17:00:00 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business
17:00:03 [Norm]
17:00:06 [Norm]
17:00:08 [Zakim]
17:00:09 [Zakim]
17:00:12 [Zakim]
17:00:13 [Zakim]
17:00:14 [Zakim]
17:00:15 [Zakim]
17:00:16 [Zakim]
17:00:18 [Zakim]
17:00:18 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
17:00:19 [Zakim]
17:00:22 [Zakim]
17:00:23 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
17:00:24 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, Alex_Milowski, PGrosso, Alessandro_Vernet, MSM, [IPcaller], Murray_Maloney, rlopes, MoZ, AndrewF, Ht
17:00:25 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
17:16:12 [Norm]
rrsagent, make logs world-visible
17:16:17 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:16:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
18:13:20 [MoZ]
Norm, still there ?
18:13:26 [Norm]
18:14:00 [MoZ]
do you have access to this email :
18:14:39 [Norm]
18:14:49 [MoZ]
18:14:56 [MoZ]
I wanted you to read it :)
18:15:15 [Norm]
I appreciate the need, but I'm sorry to see we'll have yet another transformation language
18:15:42 [MoZ]
that's the tricky point
18:16:23 [MoZ]
I'll try to avoid this by looking at sub/superset of XPath/XSLT/Xquery for that stuff
18:16:32 [Norm]
If the XG becomes a WG, I hope the charter is "thou shalt subset XPath"
18:16:58 [Norm]
As soon as it's a superset, there's a whole, huge coordination, user education, tools migration problem
18:17:02 [MoZ]
I'm sure it will be a subset of XPath
18:17:14 [MoZ]
the matter is more for XSLT because we need a superset actually
18:18:00 [Norm]
Well, I'd rather see a strict subset there, too
18:18:16 [MoZ]
18:18:35 [MoZ]
If you could elaborate, i would be very happy
18:19:12 [Norm]
I just think a superset is going to be a coordination, user education nightmare
18:19:42 [MoZ]
you're undoubtfully right
18:20:10 [MoZ]
but the very functional way of XSLT is a limitation for streaming
18:20:38 [MoZ]
there will be a need to stack information
18:21:07 [Norm]
Maybe I don't understand the requirements well enough. I'll look forward to reading the output of the XG :)
18:21:45 [MoZ]
Great !
18:22:09 [MoZ]
actually do you use StAX for big transformation ?
18:23:19 [Norm]
Norm, I use XSLT :-)
18:23:37 [Norm]
My XProc impl uses the StAX events APIs, but it builds DOMs for XSLT
18:27:54 [MoZ]
18:28:20 [MoZ]
but XSLT has severe drawback for unlimited length files, and **big** files
18:29:04 [MoZ] would probably tell me that it could be an xquery use case
18:30:51 [Norm]
18:31:02 [Norm]
Norm, I like the feature, I just wish it was a little less aggressive
18:31:07 [Norm]
18:31:10 [Norm]
See what I mean?
18:35:42 [MSM]
19:21:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
19:58:24 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
21:29:04 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
22:05:55 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc
22:08:54 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc