IRC log of xproc on 2007-12-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:03:22 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
16:03:22 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:03:25 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be xproc
16:03:30 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start 3 minutes ago
16:03:32 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
16:03:36 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
16:03:48 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
16:03:48 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
16:04:18 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
16:04:31 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
16:04:38 [MoZ]
Zakim, who is on the phone
16:04:38 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', MoZ
16:04:41 [MoZ]
Zakim, who is on the phone ?
16:04:41 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has not yet started, MoZ
16:04:43 [Zakim]
On IRC I see richard, AndrewF, RRSAgent, Zakim, MoZ, Norm, avernet, ruilopes, ht, MSM
16:04:44 [ht]
zakim,, please call ht-781
16:04:44 [Zakim]
I don't understand ', please call ht-781', ht
16:04:45 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
16:04:46 [Norm]
Date: 13 December 2007
16:04:46 [Norm]
16:04:46 [Norm]
Meeting: 93
16:04:46 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
16:04:46 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
16:04:48 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
16:05:03 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:05:03 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:05:24 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:05:24 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has not yet started, Norm
16:05:25 [Zakim]
On IRC I see richard, AndrewF, RRSAgent, Zakim, MoZ, Norm, avernet, ruilopes, ht, MSM
16:05:35 [Norm]
Zakim, this is xproc
16:05:35 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; that matches XML_PMWG()11:00AM
16:05:53 [MoZ]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Alex_Milows, Norm, MoZ, ??P26, Ht, ??P27, ??P40
16:05:56 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
16:05:56 [Zakim]
sorry, richard, I do not recognize a party named '?'
16:05:58 [avernet]
zakim, ? is avernet
16:05:58 [Zakim]
sorry, avernet, I do not recognize a party named '?'
16:06:08 [Norm]
Zakim, ??p26 is andrew
16:06:08 [Zakim]
+andrew; got it
16:06:14 [Norm]
Zakim, ??p27 is avernet
16:06:14 [Zakim]
+avernet; got it
16:06:19 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
16:06:19 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
16:06:21 [Norm]
Zakim, ??p40 is ruilopes
16:06:23 [Zakim]
I already had ??P40 as richard, Norm
16:06:26 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the call?
16:06:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Alex_Milows, Norm, MoZ, andrew, Ht, avernet, richard
16:06:38 [richard]
zakim, mute me
16:06:38 [Zakim]
richard should now be muted
16:06:49 [richard]
zakim, unmute me
16:06:49 [Zakim]
richard should no longer be muted
16:06:49 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:06:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Alex_Milows, Norm, MoZ, andrew, Ht, avernet, richard
16:07:05 [Norm]
Present: Alex, Norm, Mohamed, Andrew, Henry, Alessandro, Richard
16:07:08 [Norm]
Regrets: Paul
16:07:21 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:07:21 [Norm]
16:07:23 [Norm]
16:07:30 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
16:07:30 [Norm]
16:07:35 [Norm]
16:07:45 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 20 December 2007?
16:07:52 [Norm]
16:07:58 [Zakim]
16:07:58 [Norm]
No regrets given.
16:08:10 [Norm]
Zakim, + is ruilopes
16:08:10 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named '+'
16:08:18 [Norm]
Zakim, +[IPcaller is ruilopes
16:08:18 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller'
16:08:22 [ruilopes]
Zakim, [ is me
16:08:22 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
16:08:23 [Norm]
Zakim, IPcaller is ruilopes
16:08:23 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
16:08:34 [Norm]
Topic: Last call comments
16:08:43 [Norm]
16:09:01 [Norm]
Topic: Comment #81, a proposal to restructure our top-level syntax
16:10:21 [Norm]
Henry: I think the motivation is the crucial thing.
16:10:40 [Norm]
...It felt like we still hadn't found the sweet-spot in the relationship between pipelines, steps, and pipeline-libraries
16:10:56 [Norm]
...The crucial observation was that it suddenly made sense to allow declare-step to contain a subpipeline
16:11:19 [Norm]
...That's precisely what we're doing when we put <px:somename> in a pipeline as a call to the pipeline with the type px:somename
16:11:26 [Norm]
...It made sense to use *declare-step* to do that.
16:11:39 [Norm]
...When I worked that all through, it seemed to me to have a number of positive consequences.
16:12:26 [Norm]
...The single residual notion as the sort-of entry level way of wrapping a subpipeline to run it, it didn't have to have a name.
16:12:43 [Norm]
...Giving it a name is only necessary if you want to be able to refer to its ports.
16:13:20 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
16:13:47 [Norm]
Henry: There are two seperable parts: 1. Put a subpipeline in declare-step and 2. let's make reference to the enclosing top-level artifact easy by defaulting on p:pipe.
16:14:15 [Norm]
...I think that works very neatly, but its seperable from the other proposal.
16:14:43 [Norm]
Norm: My big concern was the fact the you couldn't import two simple pipelines anymore, because there'd be a name clash.
16:16:02 [Norm]
Henry: We could (1) add an optional name to p:pipeline, but that still doesn't help if you don't own the pipeline.
16:16:23 [Norm]
...Or (2) alow a type attribute on p:import that is the type of a naked imported pipeline.
16:16:59 [Norm]
...or an error if the imported library doesn't include it.
16:17:26 [Zakim]
16:17:53 [Norm]
Norm: If we went with type, I think I'd want it to be an error if you don't import a naked pipeline.
16:18:32 [Norm]
Henry: Or you can workaround it with a really tedious set of nested libraries.
16:18:43 [Zakim]
16:18:58 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
16:19:30 [Norm]
Some discussion
16:20:12 [Norm]
Norm: The other concern I have is much harder to quantify: are we making the language more like a static compile/run language and less dynamic and is it going to piss off our audienc.e
16:20:15 [Norm]
16:22:02 [Norm]
Richard: there isn't a pipeline and a declare-step for the pipeline, it's one or the other.
16:23:37 [Norm]
Henry observes that the type/p:import trick would bungle an attempt to import a recursive pipeline.
16:23:57 [Norm]
Alex: I don't see why requiring the p:declare-step in the recursive case is such a big deal.
16:24:58 [Norm]
Norm: I'm not *sure* it is, it just changes the way the language feels.
16:25:23 [Norm]
Richard: I thought we were going to get rid of p:pipeline altogether, just putting them all in p:declare-steps.
16:25:43 [Norm]
...Then we put pipeline back in as an abbreviation for a common case of a declare-stpe with a subpipeline in it.
16:26:16 [Norm]
...We can then fiddle with what the abbreviation means to make the common cases we care about easy.
16:26:25 [Norm]
...If you do it in those two stages, it seems more plausible to me.
16:26:34 [ht]
zakim, disconnect ht
16:26:34 [Zakim]
Ht is being disconnected
16:26:35 [Zakim]
16:26:48 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:26:48 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:26:50 [Zakim]
16:27:23 [Norm]
Norm: There's no point in repeating myself: there's a sense in which this makes the language feel more like java and less like a scrypting language and that worries me.
16:28:07 [Norm]
Henry: A question of how much a discontinuity arises when you want to write a recursive pipeline is an open question.
16:28:32 [Norm]
Alex: What if a pipeline is allowed to have a type declared. And you have to do that to use recursion.
16:29:15 [Norm]
Richard: If we made pipeline just be an abbreviation in that way, the only thing we've really changed is that you write pipelines with p:declare-step when you put them in libraries.
16:29:34 [Norm]
Henry: I get confused about what the state of play is wrt what attributes are allowed on p:pipeline at the moment.
16:29:44 [Norm]
Alex: It also fixes the defaulting problem for inputs and outputs of pipelines.
16:31:16 [Norm]
Henry: The other consequence is that we could get rid of the situation where p:pipeline has both an optional name and an optional type.
16:31:29 [Norm]
...Our users are never going to be anything other than confused by that.
16:31:48 [Norm]
Norm: The way that was rectified was by allowing p:pipe to have no step and that means the enclosing pipeline.
16:34:03 [Norm]
Some discussion of the proposal that Norm had made earlier
16:34:45 [Norm]
Alex: I'd have to think about the defaulting story a bit more.
16:36:31 [Norm]
Richard: The thing that Henry's proposing isn't really defaulting, it's like giving the name of the pipeline the name "" and just letting you not say that.
16:37:36 [Norm]
Alessandro: I think it would help if someone could consolidate the proposal and post it with some examples. My reluctance now is coming more from lack of understanding that something being wrong with it.
16:37:55 [Norm]
Henry: I'll do that over the next 24 hours.
16:38:32 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 79: sequence-consistency of choose/try branches
16:39:05 [Norm]
Norm: I think so.
16:39:31 [Norm]
Richard: The reason why it came up was that one branch had an XSLT and the other had Identity, so that doesn't work.
16:39:56 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, I see how that might be tedious.
16:40:29 [Norm]
Richard: Because you're allowed to hook sequences to non-sequences, it doesn't really matter to the implementor.
16:40:41 [Norm]
...We could say that if any branch produces a sequence, then the choose does.
16:40:46 [Norm]
16:41:09 [Norm]
Norm: I can live with that.
16:41:41 [Norm]
Proposal: We accept Richard's suggestion above, an output of a choose is a sequence if any of the branches produces a sequence on that port.
16:42:22 [Norm]
16:42:53 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 80, properties of an implicit output port
16:45:08 [MoZ]
s/a choose/a choose or try/
16:45:11 [Norm]
Richard: I think Norm's right, it inherits the properties of the output on the last step.
16:45:26 [Norm]
16:45:59 [Zakim]
16:46:22 [Norm]
Richard: The only effect that declaring something sequence=false has is that it prevents a sequence from slipping through.
16:48:49 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 83, viewport
16:49:49 [Norm]
Richard: We really did mean that the pipeline can inside the viewport can only have one output.
16:50:11 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, we meant that.
16:51:05 [Norm]
This is a significant editorial issue, but not a technical one.
16:51:51 [Norm]
The subpipeline must have one output and the result can be a sequence.
16:52:39 [Norm]
Richard: I think there may be similar editorial problems with p:for-each
16:53:09 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 74, minor p:http-request issues
16:54:46 [Norm]
The version was absent by mistake and yes, the XML decl should be present
16:55:36 [Norm]
Topic: Comment 76, p:import dynamic errors: should be static
16:56:12 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, they should be static.
16:56:17 [Norm]
16:56:34 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
16:56:35 [Norm]
16:56:48 [Zakim]
16:56:49 [Zakim]
16:56:50 [Zakim]
16:56:52 [Zakim]
16:56:53 [Zakim]
16:56:54 [Zakim]
16:57:06 [Zakim]
16:57:07 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:57:08 [Zakim]
Attendees were Alex_Milows, Norm, MoZ, Ht, andrew, avernet, richard, [IPcaller], ruilopes
16:57:55 [Norm]
RRSAgent, make minutes world-visible
16:57:55 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world-visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:58:09 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
16:58:14 [Norm]
Zakim, bye
16:58:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
16:58:18 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:58:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:47:09 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc
17:56:17 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc