15:01:48 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 15:01:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/06/21-xproc-irc 15:02:06 Andrew has joined #xproc 15:02:20 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 15:02:20 Date: 21 June 2007 15:02:20 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/06/21-agenda.html 15:02:20 Meeting number: 72, T-minus 19 weeks 15:02:20 Chair: Norm 15:02:21 Scribe: Norm 15:02:23 ScribeNick: Norm_ 15:02:35 ScribeNick: Norm 15:02:46 +??P8 15:02:51 zakim, ? is Andrew 15:02:51 +Andrew; got it 15:03:24 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:03:24 On the phone I see PGrosso, Norm, Andrew 15:03:33 zakim, please call ht-781 15:03:33 ok, ht; the call is being made 15:03:35 +Ht 15:03:39 +Alessandro_Vernet 15:05:21 richard has joined #xproc 15:06:03 +??P16 15:06:21 zakim, ? is me 15:06:21 +richard; got it 15:06:56 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:06:56 On the phone I see PGrosso, Norm, Andrew, Ht, Alessandro_Vernet, richard 15:07:17 Present: Norm, Paul, Andrew, Henry, Alessandro, Richard 15:07:26 Regrets: Rui, Michael 15:07:41 Topic: Accept this agenda? 15:07:41 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/06/21-agenda 15:07:44 Accepted. 15:07:49 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 15:07:49 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/06/14-minutes 15:07:56 Accepted. 15:08:00 Topic: Next meeting: telcon 28 June 2007 15:08:11 Regrets: Rui, Michael, Alex 15:08:18 No regrets given for 28 June 15:08:43 Topic: Review comments on 20 June 2007 editor's draft? 15:08:51 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html 15:10:12 Henry commented on some content models and on App D being broken. 15:10:17 Norm reports that those things are fixed. 15:11:54 Mohamed made some comments in email; Norm will address these. 15:12:46 Topic: Renaming p:doc, p:document, and p:journal 15:13:28 Norm describes the background following Jeni's mail 15:13:36 Henry: I'm happy to change p:journal to p:log 15:13:44 ...And I agree we should change p:doc to p:documentation. 15:13:52 ...I don't feel strongly about p:document, I'm happy to leave it. 15:14:02 ...I don't think there's any real stress between document and documentation. 15:14:24 Norm: I dislike the alternatives that have been proposed and I don't find document/documentation confusing. 15:14:37 Norm: Anyone want to persue p:document renaming? 15:14:40 No one speaks up. 15:14:44 s/persue/pursue/ 15:15:13 Proposed: Rename p:doc to p:documentation and p:journal to p:log. Leave p:document unchanged. 15:15:33 Any objections? 15:15:41 Accepted. 15:16:07 Topic: Base URIs 15:16:16 Norm outlines his concerns. 15:18:02 But not very well articulated. 15:19:36 We should probably say what happens to the base URI as a document passes through each step. 15:20:46 Norm: I guess the clearest thing I can say is that we have no way of accessing the base URI from XPath. 15:21:11 ...So you can't make a p:choose that branches on the base URI, you can't pass it as an option or parameter. 15:21:21 Let's move this to email. 15:21:58 Topic: Pipeline defaults 15:22:47 Norm points out that parameter defaults are a little tricky. 15:23:09 Henry: On the question of pipeline parameters, I sort of convinced myself that it was going to come out ok. 15:24:17 ...That is, the fact that we can put parameter port declarations on p:pipeline means that you can connect to them. 15:24:58 ...There is some way, maybe the only way, of declaring an input port in p:pipeline as a parameter port. Reading from this gets you whatever was passed in from the outside. 15:27:53 Norm: The question is, if you don't have a parameter input port on a p:pipeline, what happens to parameters? 15:28:03 Henry: I want a pipeline with one input and one output to have to have no declarations. 15:28:08 Norm: That's not on the table! 15:28:16 Henry: Yes it is. I wrote email about it...I can find that mail 15:28:36 s/to have to have no/not to have to have any/ 15:29:06 Norm: So if a pipeline has no inputs and no outputs, you want it to have a default input of source and a default output of result? 15:29:18 Henry: I don't care about the name, I just want the default input port to be available. 15:30:04 My goal all along has been to make it so that works 15:31:01 Alessandro: With a system like this, how do we declare that a pipeline has no inputs or outputs? 15:31:30 Henry proposes p:empty, but we agree quickly that this doesn't work. 15:32:53 Henry/Richard recall that we had previously discussed making nothing mean one input 15:33:29 Henry: No inputs or outputs is a small percentage case, so maybe we can have attributes on p:pipeline that identify the number of inputs and outputs. 15:33:53 Norm: Yes, that would work. It's not pretty to me... 15:35:24 Norm agrees that it's syntactically simpler but worries that it's conceptually confusing. 15:35:47 Henry: Maybe we push it too far, but think of the stdin/stdout analogy: you don't have to declare those. 15:36:09 The input to the first step is, other things being equal, the in put to the pipeline 15:36:13 Norm: I could live with it, but it's not immediately comfortable. 15:36:36 Alessandro: In my mind, pipelines are more similar to the way you would use functions in other programming languages. In those languages, default declarations are uncommon. 15:36:45 q+ to note the exception to Perl 15:37:14 Alessandro: And in my experience, having 1 input and 1 output is not the overwhelmingly common case. 15:37:26 ...Having that be the default doesn't resonate with me. 15:37:29 ack ht 15:37:29 ht, you wanted to note the exception to Perl 15:37:48 Henry: I wanted to observe that Alessandro is right in general, but Perl is a counter example. 15:37:57 ...In Perl the default input and default output are always there by default, $_ 15:37:58 That is $_ 15:38:24 Henry: I can live without this, but it seems the logical conclusion of the rest of our defaulting story. 15:39:10 Richard: One can imagine the input case working as a kind of error recovery. If a pipeline with no inputs finds its first step relies on the default input, it could infer one. But that doesn't work for outputs. 15:40:36 ACTION: Henry to get this discussion started in email 15:40:54 Topic: What's between here and Last Call? 15:42:05 Norm: I want everyone to think about what stands between us and last call. 15:42:09 Henry: Is the error story complete? 15:42:22 Zakim, what is the code ? 15:42:22 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ 15:42:22 Norm: I think it's complete, but I wouldn't swear to it. 15:42:31 Henry: Can we say nothing about implementations and APIs? 15:42:44 Norm: Good point. 15:43:12 + +41.62.aaaa 15:43:29 Henry: The fact that every implementor will have to answer certain questions doesn't obligate us to answer them. 15:43:38 Zakim, aaaa is MoZ 15:43:38 +MoZ; got it 15:43:48 Norm: I'm not sure I follow. 15:44:07 Henry: There's been an assumption that whatever the API is, it's going to get at most one document at a time. But it's also got to know when it's gotten the last one. 15:44:23 Norm: I don't think we could answer that in any sort o fimplementation independent matter. 15:45:31 Henry: Do we need or want to make the point that implementations have to buffer whole sequences at places. 15:46:18 Norm: Not normatively, in my mind, but informally I think we should mention it. 15:46:56 Try/Catch, some uses of last(), and possibly p:count 15:47:46 PGrosso has joined #xproc 15:47:59 Topic: Any other business 15:48:45 Mohamed: What about the step vocabulary, will that be updated for the next draft? 15:48:55 ...Some name changes. 15:49:37 Norm: Let's check with Alex and see what the status is/. 15:50:05 Adjourned. 15:50:05 -Ht 15:50:07 -PGrosso 15:50:09 -richard 15:50:10 -Norm 15:50:10 -Andrew 15:50:11 -Alessandro_Vernet 15:50:12 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 15:50:13 Attendees were PGrosso, Norm, Andrew, Ht, Alessandro_Vernet, richard, +41.62.aaaa, MoZ 15:50:18 PGrosso has left #xproc 15:50:21 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 15:50:26 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:50:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/06/21-xproc-minutes.html Norm 15:51:31 Norm, don't forget xsl :) 15:52:13 Norm_ has joined #xproc 18:15:52 Zakim has left #xproc