IRC log of xproc on 2007-06-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:24:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:24:54 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:24:58 [Norm]
zakim, this will be xproc
14:24:58 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 36 minutes
14:25:00 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:25:02 [Norm]
Date: 7 June 2007
14:25:04 [Norm]
14:25:06 [Norm]
Meeting number: 70, T-minus 22 weeks
14:25:08 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:25:10 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:25:12 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:26:28 [Norm]
s/22 weeks/21 weeks/
14:50:59 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
14:51:52 [MoZ]
Norm, please accept my phone regrets, I will stay on IRC
14:53:46 [Norm]
14:54:46 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
14:55:47 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
14:57:04 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
14:57:11 [Zakim]
15:00:34 [Zakim]
15:00:38 [avernet]
zakim, ? is avernet
15:00:38 [Zakim]
+avernet; got it
15:00:40 [Zakim]
15:00:54 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:01:18 [Zakim]
15:01:22 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:01:22 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:02:37 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:02:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, avernet, Alex_Milowski, richard
15:03:35 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:03:35 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:03:36 [Zakim]
15:05:08 [Andrew]
Andrew has joined #xproc
15:05:47 [Zakim]
15:05:49 [Andrew]
zakim, ? is Andrew
15:05:49 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:05:56 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Alessandro, Alex, Richard, Henry, Andrew
15:06:02 [Norm]
Regrets: Paul, Mohamed, Michael, Rui
15:06:12 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:06:13 [Norm]
15:06:16 [Norm]
15:06:21 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:06:21 [Norm]
15:06:26 [Norm]
15:06:35 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 14 May 2007
15:06:40 [Norm]
15:07:23 [Norm]
Norm will be calling from JFK, Henry to chair in his absence
15:07:49 [Norm]
Topic: Using context position to count iterations through a loop
15:09:27 [Norm]
Henry summarizes his mail
15:09:35 [Norm]
-> @@
15:10:45 [Norm]
15:17:35 [Norm]
Henry's message clearly raises a substantial issue; defer to email again.
15:18:42 [Norm]
Richard reminds us why position() doesn't work for most of the cases of for-each
15:19:23 [Norm]
Richard: Consider the second step of the subpipeline inside a for-each; the position() in that step refers to the output from the first step, not the for-each
15:20:42 [Norm]
Topic: Parameters
15:20:49 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
15:20:49 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
15:21:45 [Zakim]
+ +66135aaaa
15:21:49 [Norm]
Norm: Is anybody unhappy with the revised proposal that I sent for the next draft?
15:22:17 [Norm]
Henry: I can go either way, but I have to say I like the nested approach better than the attributes case.
15:22:49 [MoZ]
Zakim, aaaa is MoZ
15:22:49 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:24:17 [Norm]
Henry meant the p:use-parameter-set element instead of the attribute.
15:24:34 [Norm]
Henry: That removes the need for an inherits attribute.
15:24:58 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone feel strongly the other way?
15:25:07 [Norm]
Norm: I'm happy to implement it that way instead.
15:25:34 [Norm]
Norm asks the question again.
15:26:06 [Norm]
Henry: It's not clear how this effects the vanilla case.
15:28:37 [Norm]
Some discussion of elements vs attributes (@use-parameter-set vs p:use-parameter-set)
15:29:45 [Norm]
Mohamed: I think it's totally equal to have elements or attributes.
15:29:50 [Norm]
...But I prefer to have elements.
15:31:24 [Norm]
Alex: I prefer the attribute syntax, but I'm not going to stand in the way of progress.
15:31:40 [Norm]
The proposal is accepted
15:31:54 [Norm]
Topic: What's the default for steps that don't specify any parameter sets?
15:32:08 [Norm]
Norm: I think its either none or the parameters from the pipeline
15:32:28 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:32:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, avernet, Alex_Milowski, richard, Ht, Andrew, MoZ
15:32:43 [Norm]
Mohamed: Are we talking about parameters and options or just parameters?
15:32:45 [Norm]
Norm: Just parameters.
15:34:42 [Norm]
Straw poll: 2 for none, 2 for pipeline, 2 concur, and 1 abstain
15:35:17 [Norm]
Norm: The editor will do something and mark the issue unresolved.
15:35:27 [Norm]
Topic: Cardinality of inputs
15:37:04 [Norm]
Norm attempts to explain the 0 or 1 case
15:38:59 [Norm]
Some discussion of using p:count and choose to deal with the optional input anyway
15:39:17 [Norm]
Henry: It feels like creeping featurism, but I want the 90% case to still not require any more work.
15:39:54 [Norm]
Henry: I'm not happy if I have to specify two attributes to get 0 or more.
15:41:27 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone opposed to this change?
15:41:36 [Norm]
Henry: I don't prefer to make it, but I could live with it.
15:41:45 [Norm]
Henry: Any advocates on the call?
15:41:47 [Norm]
15:42:18 [Norm]
Let's leave it for a week and do a straight vote next week.
15:42:40 [Norm]
Topic: # p:head/p:tail and secondary outputs
15:42:46 [Norm]
s/# p/ p/
15:44:13 [Norm]
Henry: I'm opposed to secondary outputs by simply grabbing the input a second time and inverting the test.
15:45:12 [Norm]
Norm: I'm sort of in the same camp, I fear the overhead of dealing with ignored secondary outputs.
15:46:06 [Norm]
Henry: We've got a natural tension between some folks who think if a small number of components will do it, we're done, and others who think that if there are common assemblies, we should make components for them.
15:46:21 [Norm]
Mohamed: When I proposed p:head/p:tail, I thought it would be like lisp where you could get both.
15:46:45 [Norm]
...Head and tail have the semantics of capturing both
15:46:51 [Norm]
s/both/both to me/
15:47:13 [Norm]
Mohamed: Since we can't make a recursive call, I think it would sometimes be a lot simpler to have two different answers.
15:47:57 [Norm]
Henry: I think there's some value to that position. If the proposal is to replace p:head and p:tail with p:split-sequence, that's more attractive.
15:49:23 [Norm]
The observation that split-sequence is matching-documents is made
15:49:50 [Norm]
Richard: This starts to sound like a for-each with a choose in it.
15:50:05 [Norm]
Henry: Split-sequence without a secondary output is just the same as matching documents.
15:51:36 [Norm]
Richard: If it's equivalent to that, we should have a separate step, but maybe it should be made more general.
15:52:07 [alexmilowski]
15:52:07 [Norm]
...A step that takes a sequence input and produces a set of sequence outputs with a set of tests to determine which documents go to which outputs.
15:52:33 [Norm]
Henry: We don't have anything at the moment with arbitrary number of outputs.
15:53:35 [Norm]
Some discussion...
15:53:45 [Norm]
Henry: It would be like p:choose with branches that have guards.
15:53:55 [Norm]
...I think the 80/20 point is achieved by Mohamed's proposal.
15:54:16 [Norm]
ack alexmilowski
15:54:38 [Norm]
Alex: I just want to point out that head and tail have to do with counting.
15:54:54 [Norm]
...There are a number of options that could be used to specify a range.
15:54:57 [ht]
head and tail really are just sub-cases of matching-documents
15:55:20 [Norm]
Alex: One proposal would be to combine head and tail into one sort of "subrange" component.
15:55:57 [ht]
position()>5 and position()<10
15:56:16 [Norm]
Alex: But you can't do what tail does.
15:56:20 [Norm]
Norm: I agree
15:56:28 [Norm]
Henry: You can if we take the hard decision about last()
15:56:38 [Norm]
Richard: I think we're doing this in the wrong order.
15:57:12 [Norm]
...Whether we want these special steps on position depends on whether the general steps will do what we want.
15:58:59 [Norm]
Henry: My current position is that, keeping Paul's advice firmly in mind, no p:head, no p:tail, no p:matching-documents, only p:split-sequence with two outputs.
15:59:23 [Norm]
Henry: And allow last() to really be the real context size.
16:00:19 [Norm]
Mohamed: Now if we have last(), we don't need to have p:count
16:00:51 [Norm]
Some discussion of whether or not this is true; consensus that it isn't.
16:00:58 [Norm]
We still need p:count.
16:01:36 [Norm]
Henry: This gets us back to the the discussion at the beginning, what's the XPath context in the runtime.
16:03:00 [Norm]
Norm: I don't think we'll get final consensus on this until we've settled position() so I'll let this hang for another week as well.
16:03:18 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
16:03:19 [Norm]
16:03:35 [Zakim]
16:03:39 [Zakim]
16:03:40 [Zakim]
16:03:41 [Zakim]
16:03:43 [Zakim]
16:03:44 [Zakim]
16:03:45 [Zakim]
16:03:45 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
16:03:46 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:03:47 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, avernet, Alex_Milowski, richard, Ht, Andrew, +66135aaaa, MoZ
16:03:54 [Norm]
rrsagent, please make logs world visible
16:03:54 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'please make logs world visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:04:02 [Norm]
rrsagent, please make logs world-visible
16:04:08 [Norm]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:04:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
18:01:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
20:14:44 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc