IRC log of xproc on 2007-10-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:10 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:56:10 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/10/25-xproc-irc
14:56:16 [ht]
zakim, this will be xproc
14:56:16 [Zakim]
ok, ht; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
14:56:29 [ht]
Meeting: XML Processing Model telcon
14:56:30 [ruilopes]
ruilopes has joined #xproc
14:56:37 [ht]
Chair: Henry S. Thompson
14:56:42 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
14:56:47 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
14:57:06 [ht]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/25-agenda
15:00:40 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:00:40 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:00:41 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
15:00:41 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:00:42 [Zakim]
+Ht
15:01:01 [Zakim]
+[ArborText]
15:01:43 [Zakim]
+??P9
15:01:46 [avernet]
zakim, ? is avernet
15:01:46 [Zakim]
+avernet; got it
15:02:25 [Andrew]
Andrew has joined #xproc
15:03:08 [Zakim]
+??P12
15:03:14 [ruilopes]
Zakim, ? is me
15:03:14 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
15:03:27 [Zakim]
+??P17
15:03:31 [Andrew]
zakim, ? is Andrew
15:03:31 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:03:48 [ht]
Topic: Roll call
15:03:53 [ht]
Zakim, who is on the call?
15:03:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ht, PGrosso, avernet, ruilopes, Andrew
15:04:00 [Zakim]
+Alex_Milows
15:04:01 [ht]
Apologies from MSM and Norm
15:04:27 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/25-agenda
15:04:41 [ht]
Topic: Agenda
15:04:43 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:04:47 [ht]
Accepted as distributed
15:05:09 [Zakim]
+??P39
15:05:10 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:05:10 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:05:17 [ht]
Topic: Minutes of 18 October
15:05:19 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/18-minutes.html
15:05:33 [ht]
Accepted as distributed
15:05:52 [ht]
Topic: Next meeting 1 Nov.
15:06:16 [ht]
End of summer time in Europe
15:06:30 [ht]
Agenda wrong
15:06:52 [ht]
Call next week will be 1500UTC
15:07:58 [ht]
Regrets from Norm Walsh, Paul Grosso, Rui Lopes for 1 Nov
15:08:22 [ht]
Topic: Review of action items
15:08:46 [ht]
A-86-04: Done
15:10:20 [ht]
A-87-01: Done
15:10:35 [ht]
Rest are continued
15:11:13 [ht]
Topic: Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output
15:11:21 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#C029
15:13:26 [ht]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0084.html
15:15:18 [Zakim]
+Murray_Maloney
15:15:42 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#C029
15:16:25 [ht]
AV: Doesn't this introduce an unpredictability?
15:16:47 [ht]
... It's not clear which case you're in
15:17:05 [ht]
... You might leave a declaration out when you needed one
15:17:28 [ht]
RT: If that happens, an error will always result, because there will be an unconnected primary output
15:18:05 [ht]
AV: I'm thinking about someone reading a pipeline and trying to tell whether there's an output
15:18:20 [ht]
... they have a hard job
15:19:00 [ht]
AM: If someone uses the default form, readers will have to understand the default form
15:19:21 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:19:40 [ht]
HST: AV, what do you recommend?
15:20:05 [ht]
AV: I don't mind always having declarations on pipelines
15:20:30 [ht]
MM: Richard, could you summarize?
15:20:59 [ht]
RT: It's annoying to have to write declarations for simple one step after another pipelines
15:21:20 [ht]
... You should be able to just wrap a sequence of steps in p:pipeline and have a runnable pipe
15:21:37 [ht]
... The analogy is to UN*X pipes
15:21:44 [ht]
MM: With stdin and stdout
15:21:58 [ht]
RT: Right
15:22:03 [ht]
MM: And the problem?
15:22:42 [ht]
RT: Well, the way we implement this is by asking if the last step has a primary output, in which case it gets hooked up as the output of the pipeline
15:23:06 [ht]
... but if the last step is itself a pipeline, or a choose, things get messy
15:23:52 [ht]
... HST's solution says in the pipeline case, it has to have declaration, so you don't have to start the process all over again
15:27:19 [ht]
HST: Propose straw poll: 1) Adopt HST's proposal; 2) Revert output declaration defaulting on all compound steps; 3) Revert output declaration defaulting on p:pipeline
15:31:06 [ht]
Prefer 1) HST, 1/2RT, AM, RL; 2) ; 3) 1/2RT, AF, AV
15:31:39 [ht]
MM, PG preferring to try harder
15:32:34 [ht]
Can't live with: 1) ; 2) HST, AM, AV, RL AF, MM; 3) ;
15:33:00 [ht]
3 1/2 for (1), 2 1/2 for (3), so I'm not going to call the question
15:33:15 [ht]
Please add discussion by email
15:33:47 [ht]
Topic: Comment 6: Bindings for pipeline inputs
15:33:53 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#C006
15:35:03 [ht]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0075.html
15:36:41 [ht]
HST summarizes
15:37:11 [ht]
HST: I'm confused -- how can you put p:pipe in something static such as a step type definition
15:38:18 [ht]
RT: The discussion started wrt p:pipeline, are we extending it to p:define-step?
15:38:34 [ht]
HST: The prose in the spec at the moment doesn't distinguish this case
15:40:11 [ht]
RT: I don't think p:pipe makes any sense in the case of p:declare-step
15:41:02 [ht]
... Also, there's an interaction with default output declarations, as regards whether the output port is _bound_ or not
15:41:42 [ht]
... if we allow p:pipe in default bindings, the above may depend on whether or not the relevant step has _input_, which is surely too complex to manage
15:41:53 [ht]
AM: Can't we just get rid of this?
15:42:02 [ht]
HST: Absolutely right
15:42:12 [ht]
... we have no use case, let's get rid of it
15:42:39 [ht]
RT: I believe the status quo does not allow a 'default' binding for p:input in p:declare-step
15:43:48 [ht]
HST: Agreed
15:44:56 [ht]
RT: Not clear whether Norm's proposal is only for p:pipeline, or for any declaration. . .
15:47:07 [ht]
HST: [works through thought experiment, worried about deadly embrace]
15:48:22 [ht]
RT: Don't see any problem
15:48:38 [ht]
MM: What's the problem?
15:48:54 [ht]
HST: I guess I see no contradiction, I thought there was. . .
15:49:05 [ht]
s/problem?/problem doing this just on p:pipeline/
15:50:19 [ht]
PROPOSAL: Adopt the solution outlined in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0075.html, for p:pipeline only
15:51:14 [ht]
AV: Does that leave the question open for p:declare-step?
15:51:53 [ht]
HST: No, it doesn't, it rules it out
15:55:02 [ht]
HST: Convinced to withdraw the above -- declare-step will have to be reconsidered
15:55:32 [ht]
RT: Is this top-level only? Or pipelines in libraries?
15:56:13 [ht]
PROPOSAL: Adopt the solution outlined in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0075.html, for top-level p:pipeline only, leaving p:pipeline in libraries and p:declare-step open
15:57:22 [ht]
RESOLVED: Adopt the solution outlined in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0075.html, for top-level p:pipeline only, leaving p:pipeline in libraries and p:declare-step open
15:58:36 [Zakim]
-Murray_Maloney
15:58:37 [Zakim]
-Alex_Milows
15:58:38 [ht]
PG: HST got it wrong -- the meeting remains in EDT, and is only changing wrt Europe, which is changing from CEST to CET
15:58:41 [Zakim]
-Andrew
15:58:43 [Zakim]
-richard
15:58:44 [Zakim]
-PGrosso
15:58:45 [Zakim]
-avernet
15:58:46 [Zakim]
-ruilopes
15:58:48 [Zakim]
-Ht
15:58:48 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
15:58:50 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:58:51 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ht, PGrosso, avernet, ruilopes, Andrew, Alex_Milows, richard, Murray_Maloney
15:59:46 [ht]
... and Britain, which is changing from BST to GMT
16:00:14 [ht]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:00:21 [ht]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/25-xproc-minutes.html ht
18:12:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc