IRC log of xproc on 2007-10-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:52:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:52:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:52:06 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be xporc
14:52:06 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Norm
14:52:10 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be xproc
14:52:10 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
14:52:25 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: XProc WG meets 11 Oct:
14:53:00 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:53:00 [Norm]
Date: 11 October 2007
14:53:00 [Norm]
14:53:00 [Norm]
number Meeting: 87, T-minus 3 weeks
14:53:00 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:53:01 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:53:03 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:54:49 [Norm]
Regrets: Mohamed
14:55:56 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
14:59:55 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
14:59:57 [Norm]
Zakim, what's the passcode?
14:59:57 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), Norm
15:00:08 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:00:17 [Zakim]
15:00:38 [Zakim]
15:00:59 [Zakim]
15:01:47 [Zakim]
15:02:19 [Zakim]
15:02:35 [Norm]
Zakim, ??P10 is Andrew
15:02:35 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:02:40 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:02:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, Alessandro_Vernet, Murray_Maloney, Andrew
15:02:58 [Andrew]
Andrew has joined #xproc
15:03:03 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:03:32 [Zakim]
15:04:12 [Zakim]
15:04:29 [Norm]
Zakim, ??P0 is ruilopes
15:04:31 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
15:04:57 [Zakim]
15:04:59 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:04:59 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:05:48 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:05:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, Alessandro_Vernet, Murray_Maloney, Andrew, Alex_Milows, ruilopes, richard
15:06:37 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Paul, Alessandro, Murray, Andrew, Alex, Rui, Richard
15:06:55 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:06:55 [Norm]
15:07:00 [Norm]
15:07:06 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:07:06 [Norm]
15:07:10 [Norm]
15:07:19 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
15:07:19 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting 18 Oct 2007
15:07:32 [Norm]
Richard gives regrets.
15:07:33 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:07:33 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:07:34 [Zakim]
15:07:43 [Norm]
Topic: Review of action items:
15:07:56 [Norm]
A-86-01: Continued
15:08:02 [Norm]
A-86-02: Completed.
15:08:16 [Norm]
A-86-03: Continued
15:08:29 [Norm]
A-86-04: Continued
15:08:41 [Norm]
A-86-05: Completed.
15:08:45 [Norm]
A-86-06: Completed.
15:09:17 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output
15:09:17 [Norm]
15:09:33 [Norm]
Continued to the next meeting.
15:09:40 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 1: An unfulfilled requirement maybe? (p:exec)
15:09:40 [Norm]
15:10:05 [Norm]
15:10:09 [Norm]
15:10:38 [Norm]
Also: the wrap-*-lines options
15:11:07 [Norm]
Norm: Any discussion?
15:12:13 [Norm]
Richard: What about the syntax of cwd?
15:12:21 [Norm]
Norm: Like command, it ought to accept either form of slash
15:12:33 [Norm]
Proposal: Adopt this as a new optional step?
15:12:43 [Norm]
15:13:10 [Norm]
Richard: Given that it's optional; some platform might only implement it partially, is that allowed?
15:13:21 [Norm]
Norm: What sort of optional?
15:13:35 [Norm]
Richard: As a fictitious example, imagine an example where cwd doesn't make any sense.
15:13:45 [Norm]
Alex: If that's the case, we should make it a dynamic error.
15:13:51 [Norm]
Richard: Yes, but that's probably already the case.
15:14:06 [Norm]
Alex: I think this is a broader quesiton about partial implementation of optional steps.
15:15:02 [Norm]
Norm: I think the broader question of partially implemented optional steps is different.
15:15:30 [Norm]
Richard: An impl could provide a "conformant" flag that didn't offer the partially implemented steps.
15:15:55 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 6: Bindings for pipeline inputs
15:15:55 [Norm]
15:16:18 [Norm]
Pending Henry's action, continue to next week.
15:16:50 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:16:52 [Norm]
SCRIBE: ignore prev comment
15:17:32 [Norm]
15:19:13 [Norm]
That's Norm's example of why he wants this; at least two folks were supportive.
15:20:47 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
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]
Norm: I use the port name on the command line.
15:22:08 [Norm]
Henry: I think that's the way we intended to do the bindings from the outside.
15:22:44 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
Some confusion about the distintion between a default binding for a named port and a defaulted port.
15:25:04 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
Richard: The impl. has to provide that.
15:25:31 [Norm]
...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]
Norm: Coming back to Richard's question, if your implement always binds stdin to the p:pipeline's primary input port.
15:26:46 [Norm]
Richard: Ok. So in my case, the pipeline author's default would never come into play.
15:27:44 [Norm]
Henry: My impl works the same way wrt the stdin binding to the primary input.
15:29:40 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
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]
Norm: The other need is pipeline configurations.
15:31:14 [Norm]
Henry: Yes, I can imagine feeling different about this for secondary inputs than primary ones.
15:31:27 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:31:30 [Norm]
Murray: I'm increasingly confused. It seems like you're trying to put a lot of process control on the pipeline.
15:31:37 [Norm]
s/pipeline/command line/
15:31:43 [alexmilowski]
15:32:14 [Norm]
Murray: Putting stuff outside the pipeline when it could be inside seems to defeat the purpose of a pipeline language.
15:32:28 [Norm]
...You can do all this in your pipeline.
15:32:41 [Norm]
Richard: How do you implement the conditionality?
15:32:56 [Norm]
Murray: I thought I could examine if I've got content on an input port.
15:34:36 [Norm]
Some discussion of how XProc and XSLT differ...
15:35:43 [Norm]
Further discussion about how bindings should be done on the command line or whether the spec should say.
15:37:55 [Norm]
Alex: Would it help to distinguish between the top-level invocation of a pipeline and calling the pipeline as a step?
15:39:25 [Norm]
...So the default bindings could be considered separate from the declaration.
15:39:29 [Norm]
Norm: Perhaps...
15:39:47 [ht]
q+ to say "OK"
15:39:52 [Norm]
ack alexmilowski
15:40:04 [richard]
this seems to be even further opposed to what murray wants
15:40:24 [Norm]
Alex: This is metadata about the pipeline defaults.
15:40:28 [Norm]
ack ht
15:40:28 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to say "OK"
15:41:15 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
...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 [Norm]
Alex: I'm confused: in favor of what?
15:42:10 [Norm]
Henry: In favor of clarifying that this is allowed and what the spec intended.
15:42:16 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:42:26 [Norm]
...And it only means that when being invoked as a primary pipeline and ignored when invoked as a stpe.
15:42:29 [Norm]
15:42:57 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
Alessandro: I think this would lose a lot of its utility if you could only do this at the top level.
15:43:58 [Norm]
Henry: The interaction between that and the unbound primary input would be very unclear.
15:46:14 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
...The point of an input port being primary is that it's the one that gets connected up by default.
15:48:28 [Norm]
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 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to take a stab at reconsidering the feature applying it only to ports that are not primary.
15:49:27 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 18: Scope of step types
15:49:27 [Norm]
15:51:07 [Norm]
Norm: I'm tempted to adopt Richard's text and see how it goes.
15:54:41 [ht]
15:57:38 [Norm]
Richard: Pipelines are scopes unto themselves, they never export things outside them.
15:57:52 [Norm]
Richard: Pipeline libraries do export their internals.
15:58:10 [Norm]
Murray: I think it'll be useful to have a trivial example that shows the scoping.
15:58:16 [Norm]
Richard: One of my messages did have some examples.
15:58:51 [richard]
16:00:08 [Norm]
Some question of circularity of imports.
16:00:42 [Norm]
ACTION: Alex to propose some text about imports and circularity
16:01:00 [Norm]
Richard: This isn't literally circularity, it's a place where the tree joins up again.
16:01:33 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to attempt to incorporate Richard's draft text.
16:01:41 [Zakim]
16:01:43 [Zakim]
16:01:44 [Zakim]
16:01:44 [Zakim]
16:01:46 [Zakim]
16:01:46 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business.
16:01:47 [Zakim]
16:01:48 [Norm]
16:01:49 [Norm]
16:01:50 [Zakim]
16:01:52 [Zakim]
16:01:53 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:01:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, PGrosso, Alessandro_Vernet, Murray_Maloney, Andrew, Alex_Milows, ruilopes, richard, Ht
16:01:58 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
16:02:03 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
16:02:04 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:02:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
16:29:57 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc
17:51:15 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
18:00:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc