IRC log of xproc on 2007-06-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:55:34 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:55:34 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:55:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #xproc
14:55:42 [Norm]
zakim, this will be xproc
14:55:42 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
14:56:03 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:56:03 [Norm]
Date: 28 June 2007
14:56:03 [Norm]
14:56:03 [Norm]
Meeting number: 73, T-minus 18 weeks
14:56:03 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:56:04 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:56:06 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:57:18 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
14:59:31 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
14:59:52 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:00:00 [Zakim]
15:00:33 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:00:33 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:00:35 [Zakim]
15:00:46 [Zakim]
15:01:06 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:01:22 [Zakim]
15:01:24 [Zakim]
15:01:29 [ruilopes]
zakim ?? is me
15:01:36 [ruilopes]
zakim, ?? is me
15:01:36 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
15:01:38 [Zakim]
15:01:40 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:01:40 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:02:07 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:02:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ht, Alessandro_Vernet, ruilopes, PGrosso, richard
15:02:44 [Andrew]
Andrew has joined #xproc
15:03:21 [Zakim]
15:03:31 [Andrew]
zakim, ? is Andrew
15:03:31 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:04:08 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:04:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ht, Alessandro_Vernet, ruilopes, PGrosso, richard, Andrew
15:04:22 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Henry, Alessandro, Rui, Paul, Richard, Andrew
15:04:53 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:04:54 [Norm]
15:05:09 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:05:18 [Zakim]
15:05:32 [Norm]
Norm suggests discussing the defaulting story after review of the editor's draft
15:05:44 [Norm]
15:05:53 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Henry, Alessandro, Rui, Paul, Richard, Andrew, Alex
15:05:59 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:05:59 [Norm]
15:06:05 [Norm]
15:06:09 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 5 July 2007
15:06:20 [Norm]
Richard give regrets for the next three weeks
15:06:35 [Norm]
Topic: Review of 25 June 2007 Editor's Draft
15:06:35 [Norm]
15:07:44 [Norm]
Henry: I had one comment, but it probably comes up on the defaulting thread.
15:08:22 [Norm]
Henry: In section 2, it says "each step declares its input and output ports"
15:08:34 [Norm]
...that's not true, they have bindings, but not declarations.
15:08:57 [Norm]
...editorially, I think it might be good to distinguish between steps and types of steps somewhere around here.
15:11:15 [Norm]
Norm: It sounds like it might be a little premature to publish this draft.
15:11:36 [Norm]
Henry: Assuming that whatever we decide about defaulting is judged by the editor to be straightforward, I'd be prepared to do a New Orleans vote for next week.
15:11:58 [Norm]
Norm: Yeah, maybe that's the way to go.
15:12:38 [Norm]
Norm: So can we assume that we'll publish this draft, plus any defaulting story, next Friday if there are no objections.
15:12:41 [Norm]
No objections.
15:14:17 [Norm]
Paul: When's last call?
15:14:25 [Norm]
Some discussion of scheduling; Henry, Richard out for July
15:14:35 [Norm]
Henry: I'm happy to go to last call before I return.
15:14:58 [Norm]
Norm: Let's aim to have the last call go/no go vote on 26 July
15:16:03 [Norm]
Henry: I suggest a New Orlean's vote on the 26th too
15:19:22 [Norm]
More discussion
15:19:37 [Norm]
Last call before Extreme, CR in August, PR in September, if we have enough impls.
15:20:20 [Norm]
Topic: Defaulting
15:20:20 [Norm]
15:20:54 [Norm]
Richard reviews the proposal
15:21:47 [Norm]
Richard: Only default inputs and outputs get connected up automatically.
15:22:08 [Norm]
Richard: A disadvantage of defaulting in general is that it allows you to make mistakes.
15:23:14 [Norm]
Norm: How do folks feel about that?
15:23:20 [Norm]
15:24:45 [ht]
q+ to request an independent decision about what, if it's allowed, is meant by "<p:input port="..."/>
15:25:28 [Norm]
Norm: A pipeline with no declared inputs gets a default one if the first step needs one.
15:25:53 [Norm]
Richard: Right. If you want a pipeline with no inputs, make sure the first step doesn't have an unbound default input.
15:26:15 [Norm]
Richard: We do a similar thing for outputs.
15:26:28 [Norm]
Richard: Unconnected default outputs on the last step becomes the pipeline output.
15:26:35 [Norm]
s/outputs on/output on/
15:26:56 [Norm]
Richard: We also propose that other default outputs not be left unconnected.
15:27:26 [Norm]
Richard: The store component, for example, would be declared not to have a default output.
15:27:49 [Norm]
...So you'd have to connect that up exlicitly.
15:28:30 [Norm]
Henry: Inputs and outputs and defaulting are now completely symmetrical.
15:28:41 [Norm]
Henry: A single input/output is the default, otherwise you have to specify.
15:29:55 [Norm]
Richard: I think this natural. The thing you think of as flowing through the pipeline will usually flow throw the default inputs and outputs.
15:30:18 [Norm]
ack ht
15:30:18 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to request an independent decision about what, if it's allowed, is meant by "<p:input port="..."/>
15:30:45 [Norm]
Norm: Does anyone object to the proposal so far?
15:31:06 [Norm]
15:31:48 [Norm]
Henry: The first separable question is, should we continue to allow inputs with no bindings, and what should it mean?
15:32:07 [Norm]
...I think there are two choices: given that if you want an empty sequence, you write <p:empty>.
15:32:20 [Norm]
...First is, it's an error. You must give an input content.
15:32:27 [Norm]
...Alternatively, it means give me the default readable port.
15:32:35 [Norm]
Henry: I marginally prefer the latter.
15:33:04 [Norm]
Richard: It let's you bind to the preceding step without using its name.
15:33:14 [Norm]
Henry: Ok.
15:34:18 [Norm]
Norm: I'm ok with this and I think it should bind to the default readable port.
15:35:01 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone object to connecting a named, but unbound, input port to the default readable port.?
15:35:10 [Norm]
15:35:13 [Norm]
15:35:17 [ht]
q+ to suggest treating all containers alike wrt missing outputs
15:35:31 [Norm]
q+ To reintroduce p:sink
15:35:32 [Norm]
ack ht
15:35:32 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to suggest treating all containers alike wrt missing outputs
15:36:14 [ht]
15:36:38 [Norm]
Henry: It seems like what we've said about pipelines ought to also work for other compound steps.
15:36:56 [ht]
<p:choose><p:when test="..."><p:xinclude/></p:when><p:otherwise><p:identity/></p:pipeline>
15:37:42 [Norm]
Norm: I'm worried a little bit about the complexity of our story, but I do agree.
15:38:00 [Norm]
Henry: So I propose that we allow compound steps to get a default output.
15:39:04 [Norm]
Some discussion.
15:40:41 [Norm]
Henry: The names and cardinalities should remain the same, this is only for the case where none of the branches declare any outputs.
15:41:01 [Norm]
Norm: If any branch declares an output then they all have to declare them the same.
15:42:08 [Norm]
Henry: The spec should say that they all have to be the same.
15:42:53 [Norm]
Richard: What about the case where choose has multiple outputs because all of the branches have multiple outputs.
15:42:58 [Norm]
Henry: They must all be the same.
15:43:20 [Norm]
Norm: Any objections to this proposal?
15:43:25 [Norm]
15:43:29 [Norm]
ack Norm
15:43:29 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to reintroduce p:sink
15:43:38 [Norm]
Norm: Can we p:sink, please?
15:43:41 [Norm]
Henry: Yes.
15:44:24 [Norm]
Henry: Although it is the case that p:store could be used for this purpose if we invented a /dev/null URI, but it would be harder to optimize.
15:46:31 [Norm]
Richard: We now have possibility of pipelines themselves with unnamed inputs and outputs. It will be a question for implementations how they connect these up?
15:47:38 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone object to p:sink?
15:47:40 [Norm]
15:48:24 [Norm]
Topic: Proposal to add "group-by" option to p:wrap
15:48:24 [Norm]
15:49:16 [Norm]
Henry: I made a proposal, I stand by it.
15:49:43 [Norm]
Henry: I know that Mohamed wants a subsidary XPath that identifies what you can ignore.
15:49:45 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:49:53 [Norm]
...I think that's the wrong end of the 80/20.
15:50:14 [Norm]
Norm: We can add that later, if we're convinced.
15:50:45 [Norm]
Norm: Any objections to Henry's proposal?
15:50:49 [Norm]
15:50:57 [Norm]
Topic: Wrapper name in p:wrap-sequence?
15:50:57 [Norm]
15:51:19 [Norm]
Norm: We ought to make the wrapper a QName.
15:51:21 [Norm]
Alex: Yes.
15:51:25 [Norm]
Norm: Any objections?
15:51:26 [Norm]
15:51:31 [Norm]
Topic: Recursion?
15:51:31 [Norm]
15:56:02 [Norm]
Norm outlines the state of play as he understands it.
15:56:36 [Norm]
Norm: I think we should make it explicitly allowed.
15:56:44 [Norm]
Norm: Any objections?
15:56:47 [Norm]
15:57:09 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:57:13 [Norm]
15:57:19 [Norm]
15:57:50 [Zakim]
15:57:51 [Zakim]
15:57:52 [Zakim]
15:57:54 [Zakim]
15:57:55 [Zakim]
15:57:56 [Zakim]
15:57:57 [Zakim]
15:58:02 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
15:58:12 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
15:58:52 [ht]
I think it's important to remember that "{in-scope namespaces} 'travels with' option bindings" is a cumulative story, so, e.g. <p:option name="foo" value="x:baz"/> somewhere high, and <p:option name="bar" select="concat('y:goo',$foo)"/>, the environment will have to have ns-bindings for both 'x' and 'y' 'travelling with' the 'bar' option
15:58:58 [Zakim]
15:58:59 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:59:01 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, Ht, Alessandro_Vernet, PGrosso, ruilopes, richard, Andrew, Alex_Milowski
15:59:15 [ht]
Norm -- please catch that last remark for the minutes -- sorry, typed too slowly
15:59:15 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
15:59:25 [Norm]
ht, yeah, I think you're right. It's going to be a little tricky :-)
15:59:51 [ht]
I actually think it will be straightforward to _state_, just a little tricky to implement
15:59:57 [Norm]
16:21:53 [ht]
So I think the only change to the grammar that is required, to make p:output optional, is the content model of p:viewport
16:23:11 [ht]
16:45:56 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
17:02:51 [Norm]
Yes, ht_gone_home ?
18:05:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
18:07:37 [Norm]
rrsagent, bye
18:07:37 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items