IRC log of xproc on 2008-01-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:47:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:47:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:47:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #xproc
15:47:12 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be xproc
15:47:12 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
15:47:39 [ruilopes]
ruilopes has joined #xproc
15:53:28 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:53:28 [Norm]
Date: 3 January 2008
15:53:28 [Norm]
15:53:28 [Norm]
Meeting: 96
15:53:28 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:53:29 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:53:31 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:57:15 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:57:22 [Zakim]
15:58:40 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
16:00:50 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
16:01:12 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:01:12 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:01:14 [Zakim]
16:01:25 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
16:01:50 [MSM]
zakim, please call me at Office
16:01:50 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
16:01:51 [Zakim]
16:01:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.404.aaaa
16:01:59 [Zakim]
16:01:59 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
16:01:59 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
16:02:28 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:02:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ht, MSM, richard, +1.415.404.aaaa
16:02:33 [Norm]
Zakim, aaaa is alexmilowski
16:02:33 [Zakim]
+alexmilowski; got it
16:03:14 [Norm]
Regrets: Alessandro, Paul
16:03:22 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Michael, Henry, Richard, Alex
16:03:25 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
16:03:49 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
16:03:49 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
16:04:13 [Norm]
Regrets: Alessandro, Paul, Murray
16:04:31 [Zakim]
16:05:06 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Michael, Henry, Richard, Alex, Mohamed
16:05:08 [Zakim]
16:05:12 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Michael, Henry, Richard, Alex, Mohamed, Rui
16:05:22 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:05:22 [Norm]
16:05:24 [ruilopes]
Zakim, ? is me
16:05:24 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
16:05:41 [Norm]
16:05:42 [Zakim]
16:05:49 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Michael, Henry, Richard, Alex, Mohamed, Rui, Andrew
16:05:58 [Norm]
Zakim, ??P16 is Andrew
16:05:58 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
16:06:05 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
16:06:05 [Norm]
16:06:10 [Norm]
16:06:17 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 10 January 2008?
16:06:31 [Norm]
No regrets given.
16:07:15 [Norm]
Topic: Last call comments
16:07:15 [Norm]
16:07:23 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
16:08:03 [Norm]
Topic: 81. A proposal to restructure our top-level syntax
16:09:00 [Norm]
Norm wonders if Alex has any thoughts.
16:09:03 [Norm]
Alex: I generally like it.
16:09:37 [Norm]
Alex wonders if there are any controversial parts in the minds of others
16:09:39 [Norm]
16:10:00 [Norm]
Norm: Is there anyone on the call that thinks we shouldn't do this?
16:10:30 [Norm]
Michael: The fundamental idea seems good. Some of the special cases for defaulting are problematic.
16:11:44 [Norm]
Alex: When you have a p:pipeline, any inputs and outputs are additive, is that right?
16:12:02 [Norm]
Richard: Yes, as I framed it, p:pipeline is just syntactic sugar for a declaration with a p:input and a p:output.
16:12:33 [Norm]
...The advantage it gives is that there's a fully explicit syntax for things.
16:12:46 [Norm]
...If you want an abbreviated syntax, then p:pipeline is it, and the abbreviation seems to me to be very straightforwarde.
16:12:50 [Norm]
16:12:59 [Norm]
Alex: Can you point to a p:pipeline to import it.
16:13:10 [Norm]
Richard: I don't see why not.
16:13:30 [Norm]
In fact, you can point to all three, a p:pipeline, a p:declare-step, or a p:library.
16:14:26 [Norm]
Some discussion of the fact that this means you can point to a declare-step implemented by other means as well.
16:14:45 [Norm]
Let's consider the options in Richard's proposal:
16:14:56 [Norm]
1. How to refer to pipeline input ports within a subpipeline.
16:16:03 [Norm]
Norm: I have a preference for using the local name of the type.
16:17:09 [MoZ]
16:17:12 [Norm]
Richard: That has an impact on option 3, since it will make some inputs totally unavaiable.
16:17:27 [Norm]
Alex: Why not make the type required.
16:17:40 [Norm]
Henry: You could do that, you could take 1 and 3 as a package solution.
16:18:16 [Norm]
Henry expresses a preference for requiring the name if we don't go with the absent step attribute shortcut.
16:18:23 [Norm]
s/the name/the type/
16:19:05 [Norm]
Henry: The advantage of requiring all pipelines to be typed is that it means you can always import them.
16:19:29 [Norm]
Richard: And conversely, having untyped pipelines allows authors to prevent them from being reused.
16:19:47 [richard]
s/reused/reused without copying/
16:21:01 [Norm]
Mohamed: I prefer to use the local name as well. Omitting the name is just too complicated to understand.
16:21:16 [Norm]
So, for option 1, we'll use the local name of the step type.
16:21:44 [Norm]
2. Should the defaulted input and output on p:pipeline have referenceable names.
16:22:15 [Norm]
Richard: I think that if they don't have referencable names, how can you call the pipeline? That's compelling to me.
16:23:04 [Norm]
Norm: I feel a little odd because we've made the other choice elsewhere.
16:23:13 [Norm]
Richard: yes, but no where else is it exposed externally.
16:23:15 [Norm]
16:23:49 [Norm]
Anyone disagree?
16:25:17 [Norm]
Mohamed points out that you could still call them, as long as the call used the primary input port.
16:25:38 [Norm]
Richard: I think the the point of the simplification is that it simplifies things for the author, it shouldn't constrain the user.
16:25:41 [Norm]
s/the the/the/
16:26:30 [Norm]
Ok, for 2, we'll use the names "source" and "result"
16:27:49 [Norm]
3. The type attribute is optional on p:pipeline.
16:29:17 [Norm]
Norm: I think at the moment I favor making it optional, the point of the default syntax is to make things simple and requiring a type you never use doesn't seem simple.
16:29:27 [Norm]
Henry: I think we should try that and see if we get pushback.
16:29:50 [Norm]
So, for 3, we leave it optional.
16:31:41 [Norm]
Norm summarizes the consequences of the choices.
16:32:27 [Norm]
Richard: I left the 'primary' off of my equivalence summary in email.
16:36:52 [Norm]
Mohamed: I'm wondering about the mandatory nature of input and output in the p:pipeline case.
16:37:22 [Norm]
Norm: I think pipelines that have no input or no output are going to be much less common.
16:37:28 [richard]
It's not "do something extra if you want to reuse", it's "don't use this abbrevation if you want to reuse"
16:41:05 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to craft an editor's draft implementing these decisions
16:41:18 [Norm]
Topic: 90. Questions and comments
16:41:22 [Norm]
16:41:38 [Norm]
Norm: On closer inspection, I decided that these were editorial or clarifications.
16:42:45 [Norm]
Topic: Future plans
16:43:08 [Norm]
Norm: Seems like we're done.
16:43:11 [Norm]
Henry: Time for a last call.
16:43:25 [Norm]
Richard: Do we want to introduce this renaming in a last call.
16:44:06 [Norm]
Norm muses about that.
16:44:41 [Norm]
Norm: I guess it's time to get an editor's draft out that includes all of the decisions we've made.
16:45:07 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone know of anything else that's outstanding?
16:45:21 [Norm]
Mohamed: At some point we talked about splitting the spec.
16:45:29 [Norm]
Richard: Having the step library separate, you mean?
16:45:32 [Norm]
Mohamed: yes.
16:46:07 [Norm]
Norm: I'll put that on the agenda for next week.
16:46:14 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
16:46:21 [Norm]
16:46:32 [Norm]
16:46:35 [Zakim]
16:46:36 [Zakim]
16:46:36 [Zakim]
16:46:37 [Zakim]
16:46:38 [Zakim]
16:46:44 [Zakim]
16:51:35 [Zakim]
16:51:37 [Zakim]
16:51:38 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:51:39 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, Ht, MSM, +1.415.404.aaaa, richard, alexmilowski, MoZ, ruilopes, Andrew
16:58:46 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
16:58:49 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:58:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:13:26 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
18:43:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc