IRC log of xproc on 2007-10-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:58:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:58:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:58:37 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:58:39 [Norm]
Date: 18 October 2007
14:58:43 [Norm]
14:58:45 [Norm]
number Meeting: 88, T-minus 2 weeks
14:58:47 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:58:49 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:58:51 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:01:16 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
15:01:21 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be xproc
15:01:21 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
15:01:33 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:01:40 [Zakim]
15:02:15 [Zakim]
15:02:19 [avernet]
zakim, ? is avernet
15:02:19 [Zakim]
+avernet; got it
15:03:10 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
15:03:10 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
15:03:32 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:03:32 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:03:34 [Zakim]
15:03:52 [ht]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:56 [Zakim]
+ +95247aaaa
15:04:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PGrosso, avernet, Ht, +95247aaaa
15:04:03 [MoZ]
Zakim, aaaa is me
15:04:12 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:05:26 [Andrew]
Andrew has joined #xproc
15:05:30 [ht]
Norm, shall I start the call w/o you?
15:05:55 [Zakim]
15:06:02 [Andrew]
zakim, ? is Andrew
15:06:03 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:06:28 [MoZ]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:06:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PGrosso, avernet, Ht, MoZ, Andrew
15:06:38 [ht]
15:08:06 [ht]
scribe: ht
15:08:12 [ht]
HST: Agenda approved
15:08:27 [ht]
15:08:48 [ht]
HST: Minutes approved
15:09:29 [Zakim]
15:09:30 [ht]
HST: Next meeting 25 October
15:10:20 [ht]
HST: NW apologies for 25 Oct and 1 Nov, HST to be in the chair _pro tem_
15:11:38 [ht]
HST: Charter has been extended for 1 year
15:11:50 [ht]
PG: F2F agenda?
15:12:08 [ht]
NW: one day on comment processing, one day on the future, I guess
15:12:29 [ht]
PG: I find a detailed agenda helps folk to be prepared
15:12:43 [ht]
NW: Well, item 1 is "Read and be familiar with the details of the issues list"
15:12:53 [ht]
scribenick: Norm
15:13:13 [Norm]
s/scribe: ht/scribenick: ht/
15:13:24 [Norm]
Topic: Charter extension
15:13:27 [Norm]
Extended 1 yaer.
15:13:33 [Norm]
15:14:06 [Norm]
Topic: Review of action items
15:14:36 [Norm]
A-86-01: Alex to review XSLT streaming requirements before the face-to-face.
15:14:41 [Norm]
15:14:48 [Norm]
A-86-03: Henry to reply to the commenter (non-string parameters; issue 30)
15:14:52 [Norm]
15:14:58 [Norm]
A-86-04: Henry to craft the prose to cover the defaulted output case
15:15:17 [Norm]
15:15:22 [Norm]
A-87-01: Norm to take a stab at reconsidering the default inputs feature applying it only to ports that are not primary
15:15:25 [Norm]
15:15:30 [Norm]
A-87-02: Alex to propose some text about imports and circularity
15:15:34 [Norm]
15:15:39 [Norm]
A-87-03: Norm to attempt to incorporate Richard's draft text about step type scope
15:15:42 [Norm]
15:16:10 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output
15:16:10 [Norm]
15:16:22 [Norm]
Continued pending Henry's action
15:16:37 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 6: Bindings for pipeline inputs
15:16:37 [Norm]
15:17:02 [Norm]
Continued pending Norm's action
15:17:08 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 18: Scope of step types
15:17:08 [Norm]
15:17:15 [Norm]
Continued pending Norm's action
15:17:22 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 24: Passing PSVIs between steps
15:17:22 [Norm]
15:19:16 [Norm]
Norm outlines the issue and summarizes Jeni's observed options
15:19:58 [Norm]
Henry: I think we leave it impl. defined.
15:20:53 [Norm]
Some discussion of how defaulted attributes fit in: probably covered by the spirit of the best efforts clause.
15:21:43 [Norm]
Proposal: Leave it implementation-defined.
15:21:44 [Norm]
15:22:21 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry will respond to the commenter on comment 24: passing PSVIs between steps.
15:22:30 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 7: Saxonica comments on sections 1 and 2
15:22:31 [Norm]
15:23:22 [Norm]
Norm reviews the points in Mike's message.
15:23:27 [Norm]
Point 1: accepted.
15:23:55 [Norm]
Point 2: changed validate-* to validate-with-*; accepted.
15:25:13 [MoZ]
15:26:38 [Norm]
Point 3-6 are editorial.
15:26:47 [Norm]
Point 7: rejected, also made a separate issue
15:27:32 [Norm]
Point 8: discussion
15:27:51 [Norm]
Henry: I think we're pretty clear that we're not answering this question.
15:27:56 [Norm]
...We're trying not to be too precise.
15:29:30 [Norm]
15:30:38 [Norm]
Henry: No, that doesn't work. An XML document isn't an Infoset, the infoset is just a set of terms
15:31:26 [Norm]
Henry: But maybe it's ok.
15:31:30 [Norm]
...Sure let's try this.
15:31:36 [Norm]
Norm: What about A.3?
15:31:41 [Norm]
Henry: Yes, that looks fine too.
15:32:14 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone unhappy with the editor's resolution of Mike's point 8?
15:32:16 [Norm]
None heard.
15:32:52 [Norm]
Point 9:
15:32:53 [Norm]
15:34:03 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone unhappy with the editor's resolution of Mike's point 9?
15:34:10 [Norm]
None heard.
15:34:22 [Norm]
That leaves some editorial clarifications, but I think we've covered the technical issues
15:34:42 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 12: Saxonica comments on sections 3 and 4
15:34:42 [Norm]
15:35:11 [Norm]
15:35:54 [Norm]
Let's leave the "editorial" and "clarification" points to the editor unless they turn out not to be
15:36:00 [Norm]
Henry: I'm prepared to skip to 7.
15:37:11 [Norm]
Henry: I think he's right.
15:37:19 [Norm]
Norm: I don't think these apply to the things *inside* the elements in the step
15:37:40 [Norm]
Henry: So you meant "children" not "contains"? If so, you'll have to repeat it endlessly.
15:37:43 [Norm]
Norm: Uhm...
15:38:12 [Norm]
Henry: Can't we just say that these rules don't apply inside p:inline?
15:38:17 [Norm]
Norm: Perhaps
15:39:42 [Norm]
Some discussion about what constitutes a step.
15:40:10 [Norm]
Norm: I think children would work.
15:40:38 [Norm]
Henry: What about giving the fifth and sixth bullets a parallel construction
15:40:51 [Norm]
Henry: If any element in the XProc namespace other than p:inline, or any step, has text node children...
15:40:56 [Norm]
Norm: Sure, that would work for me.
15:41:11 [Norm]
Norm: I think that resolves point 7.
15:41:35 [Norm]
Point 8:
15:42:59 [Norm]
Henry: I think replacing "within its container" by "immediately contained by that steps container"
15:43:39 [Norm]
...Or if we've formally defined subpipline as the immediately contained steps, then "the last step in document order in the subpipeline"
15:43:51 [Norm]
Norm: I'm happy to attempt to clarify that.
15:44:05 [Norm]
Point 11:
15:46:30 [Norm]
Some of this is editorail.
15:46:48 [Norm]
Norm: I think we have clarified that select only selects elements or documents.
15:47:07 [Norm]
Henry: I've always said that select needs the same namespace fixup we already described.
15:48:41 [Norm]
Henry: We've already re-worded 4.2 so there isn't a double "each" anymore.
15:49:08 [Norm]
Norm: But that leaves "wrapped" and an explicit pointer to 2.6.1
15:50:32 [Norm]
Norm: The select question points to 5.2 and aon through to p:input where it's covered.
15:51:41 [Norm]
Henry: No, I don't think we want to make the reference to 2.6.1 explicit.
15:51:58 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to see if the commenter agree's we've addressed his concerns.
15:52:41 [Norm]
Point 12:
15:52:51 [Norm]
Henry: I think we can replace "aggregated" with "concatentated" here.
15:53:01 [Norm]
Norm: I'm willing to do that and see if it helps.
15:53:39 [Norm]
Henry: The prose is still a bit terse.
15:54:03 [Norm]
...I think we should unpack it and make it more explicit.
15:54:05 [Norm]
Norm: Ok.
15:54:20 [Norm]
Point 13:
15:55:35 [Norm]
Norm: We probably need to make the distinction between match and select more clear.
15:55:57 [Norm]
Henry: Not that you need to make the point about match only matching element or document nodes here. There's no free ride.
15:57:09 [Norm]
Norm: The WG's intent is clear but the prose needs to be clearer.
15:57:46 [Norm]
Norm: Should we make it an error?
15:57:55 [Norm]
s/error/error to select a document node/
15:57:58 [Norm]
Henry: Yes.
15:58:03 [Norm]
15:58:30 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
15:58:56 [Norm]
Point 14:
15:59:02 [Norm]
Norm: I think it can be a static error.
15:59:53 [Norm]
Henry: Is this just a case where a processor could detect it statically if it wanted to?
16:00:33 [Norm]
Norm: It could, but why not make it static?
16:00:57 [Norm]
Henry: A select option to a step may be computed, so it has to be a dynamic error.
16:01:26 [Norm]
Norm: But for select on our compound steps and for test on when, then they should be static errors.
16:02:00 [Norm]
Norm: Any objections?
16:02:04 [Norm]
16:02:09 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business
16:02:16 [Norm]
16:02:30 [Zakim]
16:02:55 [Zakim]
16:03:09 [Zakim]
16:04:55 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
16:05:05 [Zakim]
16:05:09 [Zakim]
16:05:11 [Zakim]
16:05:15 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:05:17 [Zakim]
Attendees were PGrosso, avernet, Ht, +95247aaaa, MoZ, Andrew, Norm
16:06:13 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world visible
16:06:13 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'set logs world visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:06:18 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
16:06:44 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:06:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
16:07:21 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
16:51:18 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc
17:27:43 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
17:28:41 [Norm]
RRSAgent, bye
17:28:41 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in :
17:28:41 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Henry will respond to the commenter on comment 24: passing PSVIs between steps. [1]
17:28:41 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:28:41 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to see if the commenter agree's we've addressed his concerns. [2]
17:28:41 [RRSAgent]
recorded in