IRC log of xproc on 2007-11-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:59:00 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:59:00 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:59:04 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:59:04 [Norm]
Date: 29 November 2007
15:59:08 [Norm]
15:59:10 [Norm]
Meeting: 93
15:59:12 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:59:14 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:59:16 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:59:31 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:59:38 [Zakim]
16:01:15 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
16:01:25 [Zakim]
16:01:28 [Zakim]
16:01:29 [Zakim]
16:01:46 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
16:02:15 [richard]
zakim, call ht-781
16:02:26 [Zakim]
ok, richard; the call is being made
16:02:28 [Zakim]
16:02:36 [Zakim]
16:02:43 [ruilopes]
Zakim, ?? is me
16:02:48 [richard]
zakim, what is the code?
16:02:56 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
16:03:00 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), richard
16:03:04 [Zakim]
16:03:12 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
16:03:12 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
16:03:23 [Zakim]
+ +95247aaaa
16:04:14 [MoZ]
Zakim, aaaa is me
16:04:14 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
16:05:06 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:05:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso (muted), Ht, ruilopes, richard, MoZ
16:05:23 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
16:06:02 [Norm]
Regrets: Alex, Murray
16:06:07 [Zakim]
16:06:11 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is Andrew
16:06:11 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
16:06:16 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Paul, Henry, Rui, Richard, Mohamed, Andrew
16:06:40 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:06:40 [Norm]
16:06:49 [Norm]
16:07:00 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
16:07:00 [Norm]
16:07:44 [Norm]
16:07:50 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
16:07:56 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 6 December 2007?
16:08:49 [Norm]
Norm, let's meet on 13 December isntead
16:08:52 [Norm]
s/meet/meet next/
16:09:03 [Norm]
No regrets for 13 December
16:09:25 [Norm]
s/No regrets/Mohamed gives likely regrets/
16:10:10 [Norm]
Topic: Comment #68 Comments from the XSL WG
16:10:20 [Norm]
16:10:35 [Norm]
1. Resolved
16:10:46 [Norm]
2. Why all these steps?
16:11:02 [Norm]
Norm: I don't really have any sympathy for their position
16:11:32 [Norm]
Some answers: pipelines are easier to understand, streaming is likely to be easier in some cases, ...
16:12:36 [Norm]
Henry: I think it's worth emphasizing that we anticipate that a significant user community will be processing very large inputs through very simple pipeliens and having to pay the cost of an XSLT runtime for this is not very attractive
16:12:59 [Norm]
Norm: What do we say about the fact that we don't guarantee streamabilty
16:13:19 [Norm]
Henry: No, that's a QoI issue.
16:13:37 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, let's start there. Anyone want to add anything else?
16:14:47 [Norm]
Richard: The question about streaming is more specific.
16:15:22 [Norm]
Henry: It's very easy to detect a very small subset that's streamable, but that subset covers a lot of use cases.
16:16:05 [Norm]
Richard: If you want to do some analysis, you can stream up to a point and then build a tree which is less practical for XSLT
16:16:28 [Norm]
3. Parallel executions
16:17:59 [Norm]
Norm: I don't understand the comment.
16:18:04 [Norm]
Henry: I don't understand the third sentence.
16:18:58 [Norm]
Henry: The classic case is a document styled with a stylesheet generated from the same document. What's the problem?
16:19:13 [Norm]
Richard: I think maybe they just don't understand that we're saying you have to make it work.
16:19:38 [Norm]
Norm: I think we should ask them to clarify.
16:20:59 [Norm]
Richard: The statement in the spec about "the order determined by the connections" might be being taken too strong.
16:21:07 [Norm]
Henry: Something like, "in an order consistent with the connections"...
16:21:24 [Norm]
4. resolved
16:21:27 [Norm]
5. resolved.
16:21:32 [Norm]
6. resolved
16:21:52 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to reply
16:22:16 [Norm]
Topic: Comment #69 should default ports be named
16:22:27 [Norm]
16:24:00 [Norm]
Agreed: we'll give them unreferencable names
16:24:19 [Norm]
Topic: Comment #70 circular imports
16:24:24 [Norm]
16:25:39 [Norm]
Mohamed: I don't find any context where it would be confusing
16:25:51 [Norm]
Norm: It's not possible on pipelines anymore, it's only on other compound steps
16:26:19 [Norm]
Richard: It's only the defaulted output ports of subpipelines. The only reason for allowing them is to save people from making up names in simple, linear pipelines.
16:26:44 [Norm]
...I think if they want to make reference to names out-of-order then they should have to declare the port.
16:27:18 [Norm]
Mohamed: I'm ok with that. It'll be defaulted on both ends usually.
16:27:25 [Norm]
16:28:34 [Norm]
Henry: I think his message has been overtaken.
16:28:48 [Norm]
...Our discussion at the plenary clarified the issues a lot and moved us forward.
16:29:25 [Norm]
...It would be good to get Alex's input. But we could talk about the last three paragraphs.
16:30:46 [Norm]
Richard: The main point of Henry's message is that there's a proof that it can be made to work.
16:31:34 [Norm]
...Henry's description is based on the approach that I'm taking which does several passes.
16:32:12 [Norm]
Norm: I suggest we leave this open for a week to get Alex's input.
16:33:06 [Norm]
Henry: We need to say something about reentrancy as well as circularity
16:33:44 [Norm]
Richard: I don't think the term reentrant is generally understood to mean what you mean here
16:34:45 [Norm]
Richard: It's the diamond pattern: a imports b and c and b and c both import d
16:35:03 [Norm]
Norm: Yeah, the editor will have to figure out how to express that. Poor sd.
16:35:04 [Norm]
16:35:33 [Norm]
Topic: Comment #71 http-request/etc. and URI encoded references
16:35:49 [Norm]
16:36:51 [Norm]
Norm: I think they're all LEIRIs and that's all we need to say
16:36:54 [Norm]
Henry: I think we should say that.
16:37:01 [Norm]
Norm: I agree. I'll see if that satisfies Alex.
16:37:33 [Norm]
Topic: Comment #72 name attributes and fragment identifiers
16:37:39 [Norm]
16:39:16 [Norm]
Norm: There was some pushback on the places where I put names, so I think we probably need to discuss fragids and MIME types again
16:39:41 [Norm]
Ricahrd: I think there's value in having the names independent of the fragid question, it improves error reporting.
16:39:42 [ht]
Here's the only place I can find which discusses fragids:
16:40:56 [Norm]
Henry: If we do this, then we have to address the question of uniqueness. Do we make these things unique like their sisters and cousins or not?
16:41:10 [Norm]
...We have a general purpose mechanism for naming bits of XML syntax, it's xml:id.
16:41:45 [Norm]
...I'd like to set this aside from the question of our own XPointer scheme for a moment.
16:41:56 [Norm]
Zakim, who's making noise?
16:42:07 [Zakim]
Norm, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: richard (32%), Andrew (5%), Ht (67%)
16:42:09 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
16:42:22 [Norm]
Henry: It feels a little bit like we have a hammer in our hands so everything looks like a nail.
16:42:38 [MoZ]
Zakim, who is making noise ?
16:42:46 [Norm]
...The most bizarre aspect of this is the fact that there's no discussion of the name attribute in some of those places, like p:declare-step.
16:42:49 [Zakim]
MoZ, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: richard (48%), Ht (74%)
16:43:11 [Norm]
Henry: If you give a pipeline library a name attribute, people are going to think you can refer to it by name.
16:43:26 [Norm]
...We don't really expect that to mean anything.
16:44:15 [Norm]
...Users are going to think there's some deep complexity there but there isn't, there's barely any there there.
16:44:50 [Norm]
Richard: You took the names out, Norm, but they still get names like !3
16:45:06 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, but if we undo the fragid decision...
16:45:38 [Norm]
Richard: Like I said, I use the names to report errors and I use the ! names if they don't have any.
16:45:56 [Norm]
Henry: So what's the question?
16:46:13 [Norm]
Richard: Well, there's no doubt that all steps have to have names because they have ports.
16:46:26 [Norm]
...So it's the things that don't have ports: pipeline-library, try, catch, when, otherwise, ...
16:46:51 [Norm]
Henry: My compromise position is, I'm a little nervous, but I could live with putting names on the schizophrenic contstructs.
16:46:55 [Norm]
s/try, catch/catch/
16:47:21 [Norm]
Richard: It's the things inside try and inside choose except group.
16:48:04 [Norm]
Henry: Like I said, I could live with names there; it doesn't really conflict with the object model.
16:48:12 [Norm]
Henry: It's declare-step that I think shouldn't have one.
16:49:01 [Norm]
Richard: That's funny, I was going to go the other way. It seems that declare-step should be like pipeline in this regard.
16:49:20 [Norm]
Norm: We do have this weirdness with namespace and name in pipeline library.
16:49:32 [Norm]
Henry: I agree, pipeline and declare-step should have the same naming structure.
16:50:10 [Norm]
Norm: Name doesn't work then because they're NCName.
16:50:14 [Norm]
16:50:32 [Norm]
Richard: Why would you ever want to have a single pipeline library taht declare steps in separate namespaces?
16:51:39 [Norm]
Norm: Because you aggregated them after you wrote them over time; I don't see how the library should have a bearing on the names.
16:51:47 [Norm]
Richard: Do we allow any steps to be in no namespace.
16:52:26 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, though it's not clear that we meant it to be that way.
16:53:01 [MoZ]
no namespace is impossible because of ignorable-prefix
16:54:13 [Norm]
Norm: So where are we?
16:54:26 [Norm]
Henry: I'm prepared to float the following pair of changes:
16:54:50 [MoZ]
<foo:step xmlns:foo="">...</foo:step>
16:55:13 [Norm]
Henry: Reinstate optional names on when/otherwise/catch and remove name from pipeline and namespace from pipeline-library
16:56:15 [Norm]
Norm: You can't remove name from pipeline, that's how the steps refer to its ports
16:56:24 [Norm]
Henry: No, they use the local-name of the type attribute
16:56:50 [Norm]
Norm: Uhm. My initial reaction is "eew" but maybe I need to think about it some more.
16:57:07 [Norm]
Henry: Having to write name="foo" type="my:foo" is just hopelessly confusing.
16:57:36 [Norm]
Richard: The reason that pipeline is like this is because if its usual schizophrenia
16:57:48 [Norm]
...You're allowed to have an unnamed pipeline at the moment.
16:58:12 [Norm]
...And an untyped one.
16:58:50 [Norm]
Scribe lost Richard's thread
16:59:30 [Norm]
Henry: We'll never see names and types that are different
16:59:42 [Norm]
Norm: I don't agree, I might name all my pipelines 'main' irrespective of their type
17:00:06 [Norm]
Henry: So what I said before with a small modification:
17:00:18 [Norm]
1. Remove name from declare-step and pipeline-library
17:00:24 [Norm]
2. Add name to when/otherwise/catch
17:00:49 [Norm]
3. Remove namespace from pipeline-library
17:01:06 [Norm]
4. Remvoe the magic about name/namespace for defaulted types in a pipeline library
17:01:53 [Zakim]
17:02:00 [Norm]
5. Make type required on a pipeline in a pipeline library
17:02:50 [Norm]
Norm: So the editor should give that a wack?
17:02:55 [Norm]
17:03:10 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
17:03:22 [Norm]
17:03:26 [Norm]
17:03:31 [Zakim]
17:03:33 [Zakim]
17:03:35 [Zakim]
17:03:36 [Zakim]
17:03:46 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
17:06:32 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
17:06:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ht
17:06:41 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
17:06:46 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:06:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:08:54 [ht]
17:08:54 [ht]
abstract = boolean : false
17:11:27 [Zakim]
17:11:30 [Zakim]
17:11:32 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
17:11:33 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, PGrosso, Ht, ruilopes, richard, +95247aaaa, MoZ, Andrew
18:59:30 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc
19:07:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
19:40:34 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc