IRC log of xproc on 2007-06-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

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