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