IRC log of xproc on 2007-08-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:46:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:46:50 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:46:57 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:46:57 [Norm]
Date: 9 August 2007
14:46:57 [Norm]
14:46:57 [Norm]
Meeting number: 79, T-minus 12 weeks
14:46:57 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:46:58 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:47:00 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:56:36 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
15:00:45 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
15:01:22 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
15:01:22 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
15:01:50 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:01:51 [MoZ]
Zakim, who is on the phone ?
15:01:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see no one
15:01:57 [Zakim]
15:01:58 [Zakim]
+ +40.83.aaaa
15:02:05 [avernet]
zakim, ? is avernet
15:02:05 [Zakim]
+avernet; got it
15:02:12 [MoZ]
Zakim, aaaa is me
15:02:12 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:03:06 [Andrew]
Andrew has joined #xproc
15:03:42 [Zakim]
15:03:46 [Andrew]
zakim, ? is me
15:03:46 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:04:01 [Zakim]
15:04:04 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:04:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see avernet, MoZ, Andrew, Norm
15:04:34 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:04:55 [Norm]
Regrets: Paul, Henry
15:05:10 [Norm]
Regrets: Paul, Henry, Michael
15:05:21 [Zakim]
15:05:54 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:05:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see avernet, MoZ, Andrew, Norm, Alex_Milowski
15:05:55 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:06:20 [Zakim]
15:06:21 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:06:21 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:06:43 [Norm]
Present: Alessandro, Mohamed, Andrew, Norm, Alex, Richard
15:07:01 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:07:01 [Norm]
15:07:11 [Norm]
Reorder items 2 and 3
15:07:35 [Norm]
Mohamed: I'd like to talk about p:pack.
15:07:41 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, we'll make that item 5
15:08:11 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:08:11 [Norm]
15:08:18 [Norm]
15:08:23 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 16 August 2007
15:08:39 [Norm]
Probably regrets from Mohamed
15:08:45 [Norm]
Topic: Comments on the new draft
15:08:45 [Norm]
15:09:19 [Norm]
Norm: I think it's pretty good except for the namespace bindings.
15:09:42 [Norm]
Richard: The diffs are pretty amusing.
15:10:01 [Norm]
Mohamed: What happend to err:?
15:10:12 [Zakim]
15:10:26 [Norm]
Norm: I took it out for err:errors and err:error because we can use c: for that.
15:11:02 [Norm]
Norm: Then I remembered error QNames, so I put it back.
15:12:32 [Norm]
Norm: Everyone ok with that?
15:12:33 [Norm]
Seems so.
15:12:56 [Norm]
Topic: Question of MIME type/fragid
15:12:56 [Norm]
15:13:13 [Norm]
Norm: Are we going to define one and do we want one?
15:14:21 [Norm]
Norm: Having a MIME type lets us identify pipeline documents; having a fragid syntax would let us describe how to point to important parts of a pipeline.
15:14:52 [Norm]
Norm describes his attempt at a fragid syntax.
15:16:33 [Norm]
Richard: We need to get this right before Last Call, right?
15:16:37 [Norm]
Norm: Yeah, I guess so.
15:17:42 [Norm]
Alex: Do we need to have a fragid syntax?
15:17:45 [Norm]
Murray: What would we identify
15:17:53 [Norm]
Norm: We would identify steps, ports, and options.
15:19:39 [Norm]
Norm: We don't have a need, it's a question of whether we want to provide hooks for others.
15:20:17 [Norm]
Murray: I'm some author outside a group of pipelines; so I might write an RDF statement that talks about these things; I might create a hypertext link to one.
15:20:33 [Norm]
Murray: Can I invoke a step this way?
15:20:34 [Norm]
Norm: No
15:21:07 [Norm]
Norm: You could also use it for error messages.
15:21:15 [Norm]
Richard: Seems strange to do this when we don't use them.
15:21:59 [Norm]
Norm: I get the impression that we're leaning towards a MIME type but not the fragment identifier.
15:22:15 [richard]
the xpath xpointer scheme doesnt exist
15:22:50 [Norm]
Murray: I can see the value in being able to refer to steps from the outside. I'm not sure I get the value in naming the ports.
15:22:58 [Norm]
s/naming the/having fragids for the/
15:24:04 [Norm]
Norm: So I propose that we define a MIME type, application/xml+xproc, but not a fragment identifier syntax.
15:24:39 [Norm]
Murray: How hard is it to point to steps?
15:24:45 [Norm]
Norm: Easy, if they have names and the names are unique.
15:26:38 [Norm]
Richard points out that pipelines in a library could easily have the same names
15:26:45 [Norm]
s/the same names/steps with the same names/
15:27:59 [Norm]
Alex: There's not a lot of precedent here, lots of recent specs don't have MIME types.
15:28:07 [Norm]
Richard: I haven't heard any compelling arguments for a fragid syntax.
15:29:17 [Norm]
Norm: So it seems like the consensus is MIME type yes, fragids no.
15:29:42 [MoZ]
<p:documentation xml:id="foo" />
15:29:54 [Norm]
Murray: If we think pipelines are going to be popular, which I think we do, it seems like there will be lots of people who want to talk about them.
15:30:14 [Norm]
Alex: One rational position is to not require to sprinkle xml:id over their documents. If you want to point to something, you have to name it.
15:30:40 [Norm]
Alex: Then we can do something like what Norm proposed and provide a mechanism for pointing to them.
15:31:15 [Norm]
Richard: Though I see that you might want to talk about these things, without tools, it's not terribly useful to point to them.
15:31:22 [Norm]
Murray: That's a chicken and egg thing, isn't it?
15:32:47 [Norm]
Norm: I'd like to set this aside for a moment and go on to the next item.
15:32:55 [Norm]
Topic: Question about anonymous steps or defaulted names.
15:32:55 [Norm]
15:35:31 [Norm]
Norm outlines his message
15:35:45 [Norm]
Murray: I like the idea.
15:36:11 [Norm]
Mohamed: I'm not sure I like the defaulting of inputs to the p:pipeline.
15:36:32 [Norm]
Norm: Yeah, but that's not really the issue here.
15:38:04 [Norm]
Alex muses about the syntax Norm proposed.
15:38:25 [Norm]
Richard: The presence of named ports wouldn't changed the names, would it?
15:39:55 [Norm]
Norm: We could actually use "source" and "result" for manufactured port names.
15:41:17 [alexmilowski]
15:41:40 [Norm]
Murray: Would we have to use the section symbol in the URI?
15:42:01 [MoZ]
15:42:02 [MoZ]
15:42:04 [MoZ]
15:42:05 [MoZ]
15:42:06 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, that's the price you pay for not having put your own name on the step.
15:42:07 [MoZ]
15:42:09 [MoZ]
15:42:10 [MoZ]
15:42:12 [MoZ]
15:42:49 [Norm]
Norm: Is anyone in principle against this proposal?
15:42:55 [Norm]
Mohamed: Yes.
15:42:56 [Norm]
Norm: Why?
15:43:05 [Norm]
Mohamed: It's giving more possibilities for users to not use names.
15:44:00 [alexmilowski]
mark = "-" | "_" | "." | "!" | "~" | "*" | "'" | "(" | ")"
15:44:32 [Norm]
Alex: It'd be nice if we picked a character name that doesn't require URI encoding.
15:44:44 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, how about "!"
15:45:11 [Norm]
Mohamed: I'm ok with naming steps.
15:46:02 [Norm]
Norm: One of the goals is to remove a concept from the spec, I don't anything to be anonymous.
15:47:01 [Norm]
Richard: You think you're going to use these in some hypothetical fragment syntax?
15:47:39 [Norm]
Alex: I like the idea that you can't use the manufactured name in the syntax.
15:48:06 [Norm]
Richard: We're going to specify that the things have these names. Are implementations going to have to use them?
15:49:09 [Norm]
Norm: In a running pipeline, you'll never see them.
15:49:13 [Norm]
Richard: So this has no normative effect.
15:49:55 [Norm]
Norm: True, but the spec will still be simpler because it has one less concept.
15:50:15 [alexmilowski]
15:50:20 [Norm]
Norm: I propose that we direct the editor to give this a try and see if we like it.
15:50:25 [Norm]
15:50:50 [Norm]
Norm: Drat. We won't get through namespaces in 10 minutes, let's return to MIME type/fragid.
15:51:03 [Norm]
Alex: I'm all for using the manufactured names in a fragid syntax.
15:51:23 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone opposed to having a fragid syntax for steps.
15:51:37 [Norm]
Norm: I propose we direct the editor to give that a whack too.
15:51:43 [Norm]
15:51:57 [Norm]
Mohamed: Take care that we don't overlap with the use of xml:id.
15:52:16 [Norm]
Topic: Consideration of namespace bindings
15:52:16 [Norm]
15:54:24 [Norm]
Norm describes the problem
15:55:29 [Norm]
Alex: Have you looked at what XSLT does with xsl:element
15:55:35 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, but that doesn't work for us.
15:56:42 [Norm]
Richard: Suppose you just construct arbitrary strings in options, you expect those to go through.
15:57:37 [Norm]
Norm: Then you need the union of all the bindings on all the variables used
15:57:57 [Norm]
Alex: What about the opposite case, where you don't want the bindings from the document?
15:58:41 [Norm]
Alex: XSLT avoided all this magic
15:59:46 [Norm]
Norm: So the proposal is, the namespace bindings you get on the match option passed to the delete step are the ones that are in scope for that p:option. If they don't match up, you lose.
15:59:57 [Norm]
Richard: XSLT gives you a workaround for these cases.
16:02:12 [Norm]
Some discussion of the options
16:02:42 [Norm]
Alex: We could give another attribute on p:delete that could point to an element on which to find the namespace bindings for this expression.
16:03:31 [Norm]
Richard: There'd be security considerations here, yes?
16:03:53 [Norm]
Alex: I still think "you lose" is the simplest answer.
16:04:24 [Norm]
Norm: Would anyone be uncomfortable wit the "you lose" proposal?
16:04:26 [Norm]
None heard
16:04:32 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
16:04:34 [Norm]
16:04:43 [Zakim]
16:04:44 [Norm]
16:04:45 [Zakim]
16:04:46 [Zakim]
16:04:47 [Zakim]
16:04:48 [Zakim]
16:04:49 [Zakim]
16:05:03 [Zakim]
16:05:05 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:05:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were +40.83.aaaa, avernet, MoZ, Andrew, Norm, Alex_Milowski, richard, Murray_Maloney
16:05:33 [Norm]
rrsagent, please set logs world-visible
16:05:43 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:05:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
16:21:44 [Norm]
rrsagent, by
16:21:44 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'by', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:21:47 [Norm]
zakim, bye
16:21:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
16:21:53 [Norm]
rrsagent, bye
16:21:53 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items