14:52:01 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:52:01 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-irc 14:52:06 Zakim, this will be xporc 14:52:06 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Norm 14:52:10 Zakim, this will be xproc 14:52:10 ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 14:52:25 Norm has changed the topic to: XProc WG meets 11 Oct: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-agenda 14:53:00 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 14:53:00 Date: 11 October 2007 14:53:00 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-agenda 14:53:00 number Meeting: 87, T-minus 3 weeks 14:53:00 Chair: Norm 14:53:01 Scribe: Norm 14:53:03 ScribeNick: Norm 14:54:49 Regrets: Mohamed 14:55:56 PGrosso has joined #xproc 14:59:55 avernet has joined #xproc 14:59:57 Zakim, what's the passcode? 14:59:57 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Norm 15:00:08 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 15:00:17 +Norm 15:00:38 +[ArborText] 15:00:59 +Alessandro_Vernet 15:01:47 +Murray_Maloney 15:02:19 +??P10 15:02:35 Zakim, ??P10 is Andrew 15:02:35 +Andrew; got it 15:02:40 Zakim, who's on the phone? 15:02:40 On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, Alessandro_Vernet, Murray_Maloney, Andrew 15:02:58 Andrew has joined #xproc 15:03:03 richard has joined #xproc 15:03:32 +Alex_Milows 15:04:12 +??P0 15:04:29 Zakim, ??P0 is ruilopes 15:04:31 +ruilopes; got it 15:04:57 +??P14 15:04:59 zakim, ? is me 15:04:59 +richard; got it 15:05:48 Zakim, who's on the phone? 15:05:48 On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, Alessandro_Vernet, Murray_Maloney, Andrew, Alex_Milows, ruilopes, richard 15:06:37 Present: Norm, Paul, Alessandro, Murray, Andrew, Alex, Rui, Richard 15:06:55 Topic: Accept this agenda? 15:06:55 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-agenda 15:07:00 Accepted. 15:07:06 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 15:07:06 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/04-minutes 15:07:10 Accepted. 15:07:19 ht has joined #xproc 15:07:19 Topic: Next meeting 18 Oct 2007 15:07:32 Richard gives regrets. 15:07:33 zakim, please call ht-781 15:07:33 ok, ht; the call is being made 15:07:34 +Ht 15:07:43 Topic: Review of action items: 15:07:56 A-86-01: Continued 15:08:02 A-86-02: Completed. 15:08:16 A-86-03: Continued 15:08:29 A-86-04: Continued 15:08:41 A-86-05: Completed. 15:08:45 A-86-06: Completed. 15:09:17 Topic: Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output 15:09:17 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#029 15:09:33 Continued to the next meeting. 15:09:40 Topic: Comment 1: An unfulfilled requirement maybe? (p:exec) 15:09:40 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#001 15:10:05 -> 15:10:09 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Oct/0018.html 15:10:38 Also: the wrap-*-lines options 15:11:07 Norm: Any discussion? 15:12:13 Richard: What about the syntax of cwd? 15:12:21 Norm: Like command, it ought to accept either form of slash 15:12:33 Proposal: Adopt this as a new optional step? 15:12:43 Accepted. 15:13:10 Richard: Given that it's optional; some platform might only implement it partially, is that allowed? 15:13:21 Norm: What sort of optional? 15:13:35 Richard: As a fictitious example, imagine an example where cwd doesn't make any sense. 15:13:45 Alex: If that's the case, we should make it a dynamic error. 15:13:51 Richard: Yes, but that's probably already the case. 15:14:06 Alex: I think this is a broader quesiton about partial implementation of optional steps. 15:15:02 Norm: I think the broader question of partially implemented optional steps is different. 15:15:30 Richard: An impl could provide a "conformant" flag that didn't offer the partially implemented steps. 15:15:55 Topic: Comment 6: Bindings for pipeline inputs 15:15:55 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#006 15:16:18 Pending Henry's action, continue to next week. 15:16:50 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 15:16:52 SCRIBE: ignore prev comment 15:17:32 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0058.html 15:19:13 That's Norm's example of why he wants this; at least two folks were supportive. 15:20:47 Richard: I had plans to have the primary input to a pipeline come from stdin; if I have to provide a default if its not there, I don't see how to do that. 15:21:12 Murray: If the input binding comes from an input decl and you override it on the command line, what do you do inside the pipeline to designate that? 15:21:56 Norm: I use the port name on the command line. 15:22:08 Henry: I think that's the way we intended to do the bindings from the outside. 15:22:44 Murray: The other way to think of it is to say that the pipeline binds to something passed on the command line. 15:24:07 Some confusion about the distintion between a default binding for a named port and a defaulted port. 15:25:04 Murray: I'm confused by the use of the word default. You want a binding for a port name to a source on the command line. 15:25:09 Richard: The impl. has to provide that. 15:25:31 ...This defaulting is a way for a pipeline author to say what happens if the user *doesn't* provide the binding. 15:26:18 Norm: Coming back to Richard's question, if your implement always binds stdin to the p:pipeline's primary input port. 15:26:46 Richard: Ok. So in my case, the pipeline author's default would never come into play. 15:27:44 Henry: My impl works the same way wrt the stdin binding to the primary input. 15:29:40 Henry: This just means implementations have to have syntax (command line, or whatever) to specify all three possibilities: bind to a document, bind to stdin, or use the pipeline-specified default. 15:30:03 Henry: AFAICS, the only occasion I can see for using this is to have a pipeline with a fixed input. And we already have a mechanism for supporting that. 15:30:24 Norm: The other need is pipeline configurations. 15:31:14 Henry: Yes, I can imagine feeling different about this for secondary inputs than primary ones. 15:31:27 PGrosso has joined #xproc 15:31:30 Murray: I'm increasingly confused. It seems like you're trying to put a lot of process control on the pipeline. 15:31:37 s/pipeline/command line/ 15:31:43 q+ 15:32:14 Murray: Putting stuff outside the pipeline when it could be inside seems to defeat the purpose of a pipeline language. 15:32:28 ...You can do all this in your pipeline. 15:32:41 Richard: How do you implement the conditionality? 15:32:56 Murray: I thought I could examine if I've got content on an input port. 15:34:36 Some discussion of how XProc and XSLT differ... 15:35:43 Further discussion about how bindings should be done on the command line or whether the spec should say. 15:37:55 Alex: Would it help to distinguish between the top-level invocation of a pipeline and calling the pipeline as a step? 15:39:25 ...So the default bindings could be considered separate from the declaration. 15:39:29 Norm: Perhaps... 15:39:47 q+ to say "OK" 15:39:52 ack alexmilowski 15:40:04 this seems to be even further opposed to what murray wants 15:40:24 Alex: This is metadata about the pipeline defaults. 15:40:28 ack ht 15:40:28 ht, you wanted to say "OK" 15:41:15 Henry: With the clarification that this story only applies to top-level pipelines, not to pipelines being run as steps, (with some complication about what it means if this is used in a library) 15:41:40 ...I think we've thrashed this to death; I think it may be more trouble than it's worth, but let's see. So I'm cautiously in favor. 15:41:49 Alex: I'm confused: in favor of what? 15:42:10 Henry: In favor of clarifying that this is allowed and what the spec intended. 15:42:16 PGrosso has joined #xproc 15:42:26 ...And it only means that when being invoked as a primary pipeline and ignored when invoked as a stpe. 15:42:29 s/stpe/step/ 15:42:57 Norm: Is the next logical step for me to attempt to clarify this in the spec and see if we like the results? 15:43:18 Alessandro: I think this would lose a lot of its utility if you could only do this at the top level. 15:43:58 Henry: The interaction between that and the unbound primary input would be very unclear. 15:46:14 Norm attempts to suggest that it can never occur, but Richard points out that the default binding is only for primary input ports. 15:46:51 Richard: I'd be happier with it if defaults were only allowed on non-primary input ports. That would resolve the issue for steps that were never called. It would resolve the unnaturalness wrt stdin/stdout. 15:47:58 ...The point of an input port being primary is that it's the one that gets connected up by default. 15:48:28 Murray: I'd like to observe that XProc doesn't need to do everything. What you're trying to do with processing foo.xml intead of langspec.xml could be done with a shell script. 15:49:11 ACTION: Norm to take a stab at reconsidering the feature applying it only to ports that are not primary. 15:49:27 Topic: Comment 18: Scope of step types 15:49:27 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#018 15:51:07 Norm: I'm tempted to adopt Richard's text and see how it goes. 15:54:41 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0049.html 15:57:38 Richard: Pipelines are scopes unto themselves, they never export things outside them. 15:57:52 Richard: Pipeline libraries do export their internals. 15:58:10 Murray: I think it'll be useful to have a trivial example that shows the scoping. 15:58:16 Richard: One of my messages did have some examples. 15:58:51 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0017.html 16:00:08 Some question of circularity of imports. 16:00:42 ACTION: Alex to propose some text about imports and circularity 16:01:00 Richard: This isn't literally circularity, it's a place where the tree joins up again. 16:01:33 ACTION: Norm to attempt to incorporate Richard's draft text. 16:01:41 -Ht 16:01:43 -Murray_Maloney 16:01:44 -Norm 16:01:44 -Andrew 16:01:46 -PGrosso 16:01:46 Topic: Any other business. 16:01:47 -richard 16:01:48 None. 16:01:49 ADJOURNED 16:01:50 -ruilopes 16:01:52 -Alessandro_Vernet 16:01:53 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 16:01:54 Attendees were Norm, PGrosso, Alessandro_Vernet, Murray_Maloney, Andrew, Alex_Milows, ruilopes, richard, Ht 16:01:58 RRSAgent, set logs world-visible 16:02:03 PGrosso has left #xproc 16:02:04 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:02:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html Norm 16:29:57 MSM has joined #xproc 17:51:15 avernet has joined #xproc 18:00:51 Zakim has left #xproc