14:57:16 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:57:16 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/06/14-xproc-irc 14:59:51 MoZ has joined #xproc 15:00:08 ruilopes has joined #xproc 15:00:37 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 15:00:43 +[ArborText] 15:00:57 avernet has joined #xproc 15:00:57 Norm has joined #xproc 15:01:12 +??P27 15:01:14 -PGrosso 15:01:16 zakim, what's the passcode? 15:01:16 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Norm 15:01:20 Zakim, ?? is me 15:01:20 +ruilopes; got it 15:01:40 +[IPcaller] 15:01:41 +[ArborText] 15:01:47 zakim, [I is avernet 15:01:47 +avernet; got it 15:02:02 +Alex_Milowski 15:02:10 + +1.718.289.aaaa 15:02:14 zakim, aaaa is Norm_JFK 15:02:14 +Norm_JFK; got it 15:02:28 zakim, please call ht-781 15:02:29 ok, ht; the call is being made 15:02:30 +Ht 15:02:44 Andrew has joined #xproc 15:02:57 richard has joined #xproc 15:03:09 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 15:03:09 Date: 14 June 2007 15:03:09 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/06/14-agenda.html 15:03:09 Meeting number: 71, T-minus 20 weeks 15:03:09 Chair: Norm 15:03:10 Scribe: Norm 15:03:12 ScribeNick: Norm_JFK 15:03:12 +??P1 15:03:17 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 15:03:17 zakim, ? is Andrew 15:03:18 +Andrew; got it 15:03:26 +??P4 15:03:28 zakim, ? is me 15:03:28 +richard; got it 15:04:37 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:04:37 On the phone I see ruilopes, avernet, PGrosso, Alex_Milowski, Norm_JFK, Ht, Andrew, richard 15:05:14 Present: Rui, Alessandro, Paul, Alex, Norm, Henry, Andrew, Richard 15:05:24 Regrets: None 15:05:29 Topic: Accept this agenda? 15:05:29 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/06/14-agenda.html 15:05:34 Accepted. 15:05:38 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 15:05:38 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/06/07-minutes.html 15:05:45 Accepted. 15:05:49 Topic: Next meeting: telcon 21 June 2007 15:05:59 No regrets given. 15:06:22 Alex gives regrets 15:06:35 Topic: Simplify parameters per Norm's observations 15:06:42 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Jun/0125.html 15:08:17 Norm attempts to explain his proposal 15:08:23 Alex: I'm confused. 15:09:34 Norm points out that pipes inside parameter sets could be just like ports in steps. 15:10:08 Alex: Why not abandon parameters altogether? 15:10:29 Henry: I think it's a good balance. I think it's important to preserve the simplicity of simply setting p:parameter on a step. 15:10:45 ...Especially when what you're setting it to is the value of an option. 15:10:58 ...If we made parameters only documents, you'd have to go way around the house to do that. 15:11:25 Henry: It has the property that I like which is that you can just about ignore them if you don't use them. 15:11:39 ...There are issues about defaulting, but I'm prepared to leave them on the side for now. 15:12:22 Henry: Two questions remain: if we acknowledge that the flow of parameters is subsidiary to the flow of documents, what's the declaration for the input? 15:12:41 ...1. It's basically an input, declare it and use it. We'll steal a port name for this. 15:13:37 ...2. Avoid trespassing on the port namespace, make them choose parameters everytime and they'll be some attribute on input that lets you say that this is the parameter input port. 15:13:48 s/they'll/there'll/ 15:14:11 ...3. Just use a distinguished element, p:parameter-input 15:14:26 Henry: I could live with any one of these. 15:14:37 Norm: I could live with any one of them as well 15:14:58 Regrets : MoZ (on IRC only) 15:15:11 Norm: We don't seem to have strong consensus, I'd be inclined to pick one with the understanding that we could change our minds after living with it for a bit 15:17:30 Some discussion of a sequence of c:parameter documents or a c:parameters document with a set of parameter inside it. 15:17:45 Alex: I guess I'm fine with this. 15:18:01 Norm: Anyone not want to go there? 15:18:04 No one speaks up 15:18:32 port='parameter 15:18:35 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:18:35 On the phone I see ruilopes, avernet, PGrosso, Alex_Milowski, Norm_JFK, Ht, Andrew, richard 15:19:08 1) 15:19:26 2) 15:19:42 3) 15:21:22 Straw poll: 1:1, 2:2, 3:5, abstain:1 15:21:39 Proposal: Norm will write up the proposal in a draft using p:parameter-input 15:22:12 Topic: Using context position to count interations through a loop? 15:22:17 s/loop?/loop/ 15:23:13 Henry: I'm not convinced by Jeni's arguments, I'd really rather not. 15:23:29 ...It means that you have to can't use position for position in the current sequence 15:24:00 Henry: I think we should stick with the straightfoward definition of position() in a sequence in an atomic step 15:24:07 ...and have something else for the iteration count. 15:24:31 Henry: There are some unaswered questions, but I think we can answer them. 15:25:09 +1 for Henry's proposal 15:25:30 Henry: One case where we will have to think about it is in a select of a p:input 15:26:02 Henry: p:input select="position() mod 2 = 0" should return every other document, but I'm prepared to leave that for another day. 15:26:32 ...We need to look very carefully at every place in the syntax where the pipeline processor will evaluate expressions and determine what the answer is. 15:26:57 ...There are two places, one is p:input; the other is, if we keep it there, the select on for-each itself. 15:27:22 Norm: Anyone in favor of position()? 15:27:23 None heard. 15:27:39 Proposal: the next draft add a p:index() function which performs iteration counting. 15:28:26 ...We'll still use position() for sequence counting in atomic steps. 15:28:33 Accepted 15:28:46 Topic: Cardinality of inputs 15:29:30 Norm: Does anyone want to champion changes in this area? 15:29:42 Norm: I don't hear anyone, so the status quo remains. 15:30:02 Topic: p:head/p:tail and secondary outputs 15:31:20 Norm: We delayed this until position() was settled 15:31:34 Henry: Right. Now we have, I think we can go ahead with p:split-sequence 15:32:05 Henry: last() means what it should mean when evaluated by a component in the context of a sequence and component implementors have to get it right. 15:32:16 ...users will have to understand that they lose streaming if they do so. 15:32:34 Alex: There are lots of XPath expressions that don't stream. 15:32:53 Henry: Yes, but it's worth noting that this is the next level up. This makes you buffer the entire document sequence. 15:33:46 Norm: Anyone opposed to Henry's proposal? 15:34:04 Accepted. 15:34:16 Topic: @select on p:for-each 15:34:38 Norm: Let's start with the straight-up question, does anyone think we can't simply delete it? 15:35:02 Me !! 15:35:44 Zakim, what is the code ? 15:35:44 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ 15:35:47 Henry: If you don't have it, then it forces you to write a p:input on p:for-each even though defaulting does the right thing in all other places 15:36:11 +??P2 15:36:26 Zakim, ??P2 is me 15:36:26 +MoZ; got it 15:38:06 NW: It's already on iteration-source, I want to delete it from for-each 15:38:17 AM: In that case, I'm for deleting it 15:38:38 MZ: Main argument for keeping it is to keep the parallelism with viewport 15:39:21 ... We do have to tweak the semantics of select on p:input (and friends) . . . 15:39:33 NW: Should we talk about that? 15:39:36 MZ: Yes 15:40:13 NW: Implementation uncovered for me that selecting on an input (or for-each) you don't recurse 15:40:30 ... I think that's nuts 15:40:57 ... If you have four divs with 7 divs nested inside, you should get 11 documents 15:41:06 ... comments/disagreements? 15:41:50 MZ: I think this will be difficult to implement for p:input, and therefore for p:for-each if we remove select from p:for-each 15:42:30 NW: I think it's easy to do this, using existing libraries 15:43:35 Norm has joined #xproc 15:44:20 HT: It's easy to do the current semantics with a streaming implementation, and hard to do the proposed semantics 15:44:46 NW: I will lie down in the road if we keep the current semantics and still call it 'select' 15:45:04 HT: Agreed that it's change the name or change the semantics, status quo is not good 15:45:40 Henry: What about the following argument: we do have match semantics for viewport, where the coherence of the operation requires it. 15:46:23 ...But for for-each, it's not as much like viewport as we might think. It's there so that you can demultiplex a sequence to use steps that require single documents. 15:46:31 ...If we haven't had a select on for-each at all, I'm not sure that I would have complained. 15:47:15 xh:div[not(ancestor::xh:div)] 15:47:26 ...That's the point that I've arrived at. Another observation: it will always be possible to write @@@ to get the top-level divs. 15:47:36 Henry: If we move to pure select semantics on input. 15:48:01 Henry: I've talked myself into saying that there's no special semantics required for an attribute on for-each. It's like any other component that takes a sequence. 15:48:51 Henry: On p:input, I don't have a problem with saying that 'select' should have ordinary "select" semantics. 15:50:17 HT: so is iteration-source shared by for-each and viewport ? 15:50:36 NW: No, viewport has viewport-source , which doesn't allow select 15:51:27 NW: Does anyone object to changing the semantics of 'select' on input to be full selection semantics (i.e. no partial match semantics) 15:51:43 NW: RESOLUTION: Change the semantics of 'select' on input to be full selection semantics (i.e. no partial match semantics) 15:52:05 NW: Any objections to removing 'select' from p:for-each? 15:52:20 NW: RESOLUTION: Remove 'select' from p:for-each 15:59:43 RRSAgent, make logs world-visible. 15:59:47 -ruilopes 15:59:48 -Norm_JFK 15:59:50 -Andrew 15:59:51 -MoZ 15:59:52 -Alex_Milowski 15:59:54 -avernet 15:59:55 -richard 15:59:57 -PGrosso 16:00:04 RRSAgent, make logs world-visible 16:00:13 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:00:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/06/14-xproc-minutes.html ht 16:00:34 PGrosso has left #xproc 16:01:28 -Ht 16:01:29 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 16:01:31 Attendees were PGrosso, ruilopes, [IPcaller], avernet, Alex_Milowski, +1.718.289.aaaa, Norm_JFK, Ht, Andrew, richard, MoZ 16:01:34 zakim, bye 16:01:34 Zakim has left #xproc 16:01:38 rrsagent, bye 16:01:38 I see no action items