IRC log of xproc on 2008-01-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:58:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:58:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:58:53 [Norm]
Zakim, this is xproc
15:58:53 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; that matches XML_PMWG()11:00AM
15:59:24 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:59:24 [Norm]
Date: 10 January 2008
15:59:24 [Norm]
15:59:24 [Norm]
Meeting: 97
15:59:24 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:59:25 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:59:27 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:59:58 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:59:58 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:59:59 [Zakim]
16:00:01 [Zakim]
16:00:03 [Zakim]
16:00:06 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:00:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ht (muted)
16:00:23 [Zakim]
16:00:34 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:00:34 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ht, PGrosso
16:01:12 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
16:01:45 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
16:02:14 [Zakim]
16:02:16 [avernet]
zakim, ? is avernet
16:02:16 [Zakim]
+avernet; got it
16:02:29 [Norm]
Regrets: Murray
16:02:46 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:02:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ht, PGrosso, avernet
16:02:48 [Zakim]
16:02:56 [Zakim]
16:03:02 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
16:03:02 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
16:03:02 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
16:04:09 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:04:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ht, PGrosso, avernet, alexmilowski, richard
16:04:27 [Zakim]
16:05:07 [Zakim]
16:05:08 [avernet]
zakim, ? is avernet
16:05:09 [Zakim]
+avernet; got it
16:05:22 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Henry, Paul, Alessandro, Alex, Richard
16:05:37 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:05:37 [Norm]
16:05:45 [Norm]
16:05:58 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
16:05:58 [Norm]
16:06:01 [Norm]
16:06:07 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 17 January 2008?
16:06:14 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
16:06:25 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Henry, Paul, Alessandro, Alex, Richard, Andrew
16:06:36 [Norm]
Topic: Face-to-face meeting in 2008?
16:07:03 [Zakim]
16:07:07 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone think we want to try to do that before the Tech Plenary? (Oct in Mandelieu)
16:07:08 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is Andrew
16:07:10 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
16:08:02 [Norm]
Henry: I can imagine that we are sufficiently finished with XProc in a few months that it will be time to turn our attention to our other task.
16:08:15 [Norm]
...Sitting around a table would be the best way to start.
16:08:42 [Norm]
Norm wonders about Balisage...
16:09:11 [Norm]
Norm: Let's wait and see
16:09:25 [Norm]
Topic: Last call comments
16:09:25 [Norm]
16:09:39 [Norm]
Comment 21: XProc localization
16:10:44 [Norm]
Norm outlines his message about making p:error take its description from an input port
16:11:01 [Norm]
Henry: This resonates with something I encountered when trying to simplify the early example pipelines.
16:11:12 [Norm]
...Sometimes you'd like an alternative between an input port and an option.
16:11:45 [Norm]
...For example, I'd like to be able to specify the XSLT stylesheet by way of an option instead of on an input port.
16:12:08 [Norm]
...It's just laziness, but the idea of having an option and a port in a trading relationship seems very natural
16:12:34 [Norm]
Henry: The alternative is that folks won't provide descriptions for errors.
16:13:10 [Norm]
Henry: Do we want to consider adding this feature?
16:14:02 [Norm]
Richard: Can't you do it with a select and an expression?
16:14:11 [Norm]
Norm: No, because it gets turned into a string and the markup is thrown away.
16:14:35 [Norm]
Norm: I guess my reaction is, gosh that's a nice feature but aren't we done adding features?
16:14:42 [Norm]
Henry: It's not a feature it's a design pattern.
16:15:01 [Norm]
Richard: It seems to me that it's a bit excessive for what it does.
16:15:59 [Norm]
Support does not seem to be rising for the coocurrence constraint idea.
16:17:01 [Norm]
Norm: Do we want to make the description of p:error an input port?
16:18:06 [Norm]
Norm: I observe that it does require the user to make up some random document element for the message.
16:18:36 [Norm]
Richard: What about structured content?
16:18:53 [Norm]
Norm: No, way too much feature for now. We could remove the restrction to strings, but that didn't get support alst time it came up.
16:19:01 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:19:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ht, PGrosso, alexmilowski, richard, avernet, Andrew
16:19:11 [Norm]
Norm: Straw poll: Input or option?
16:19:43 [Norm]
Input wins with unanimity.
16:19:59 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to change the spec to make error descriptions come from an input port on p:error
16:20:12 [Norm]
Topic: Split the spec into two or three parts?
16:21:36 [Norm]
Some discussion of why we might dot his
16:21:39 [Norm]
s/dot his/do this/
16:21:51 [Norm]
Richard: I'm inclined to keep them together.
16:22:10 [Norm]
Richard: I think it's simpler for readers to ahve it all in one document.
16:23:50 [Norm]
Paul: The biggest advantage as far as I'm concerned is that you could advance different parts to PER, for example, independently.
16:24:38 [Norm]
Paul: For example, you can tell folks we haven't fiddled the language, we've just changed the steps.
16:24:58 [Norm]
Henry made apoint earlier about the fact that breaking it into pieces doesn't necessarily make it into separate RECs
16:25:09 [Norm]
Paul: I don't think it makes sense to do unless we make different RECs.
16:25:41 [Norm]
Norm: The editor doesn't feel strongly one way or the other, for what it's worth.
16:25:52 [Norm]
Henry: I think Paul's argument has value, but I don't feel that strongly either.
16:26:31 [Norm]
Some discussion of adding steps in the future
16:26:41 [Norm]
Henry: At worst, we can always change our minds later.
16:26:52 [Norm]
...At V1.1 time, for example.
16:27:43 [Norm]
The chair doesn't hear consensus for splitting the document at this time.
16:28:10 [Norm]
Topic: Replace ignored namespaces with p:appinfo (or some such)
16:29:10 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
16:29:30 [Norm]
Norm summarizes how we got where we are
16:31:01 [Zakim]
16:31:25 [Norm]
Richard: One advantage to inventing your own namespace is that it designates the owner of the ifno.
16:31:28 [Norm]
16:32:25 [Norm]
Norm: We could mandate, suggest, or leave that problem to implementors
16:32:28 [Norm]
Alex: Why?
16:32:39 [Norm]
Henry: Because it's just not clear and is contradictory in the spec.
16:33:31 [Norm]
Henry: The core of my problem is that we invite people to put an element between two steps but we say it musn't change the flow. That's just bizarre.
16:34:41 [Norm]
Some discussion of the extent to which deleting them is appropriate.
16:36:47 [Norm]
Norm: I guess the position I've come to is that ignored namespaces introduce some complexity without much benefit over having a single element for this purpose.
16:37:02 [Norm]
Alex: What about making them top-level?
16:37:11 [Norm]
Henry: Yes, excpet that the spec tries to do that and it gets confusing.
16:38:38 [Norm]
Henry: Instead of putting it in subpipline, couldn't we put it in the prolog?
16:40:51 [Norm]
Richard: Does having a p:appinfo solve the placement problem?
16:40:55 [Norm]
Some discussion, basically yes.
16:41:22 [Norm]
Alex: I'm partial to the ignored namespace thing, but I don't mind having an appinfo, as long as we don't call it "appinfo".
16:42:07 [Norm]
Straw poll: keep ignored namespaces,or abandon them in favor of some element to be named later.
16:42:24 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:42:24 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ht, PGrosso, alexmilowski, richard, avernet, Andrew, MoZ
16:43:35 [Norm]
Results: 6 for new element, 1 for ignored namespaces, and 1 abstention,.
16:43:39 [Norm]
16:43:52 [Norm]
Name the new element...
16:44:05 [Norm]
16:44:11 [Norm]
16:44:16 [MoZ]
16:44:25 [Norm]
16:47:23 [Norm]
Results: pipedata: 3, userdata: 2, pipeinfo: 4, pragma: 3
16:48:01 [Norm]
The winner is p:pipeinfo.
16:48:23 [Norm]
Topic: Allow sequences on source and result of p:pipeline
16:49:10 [Norm]
Norm: I'm inclined to say not.
16:49:35 [Norm]
Alex: I'm inclined to allow them so that you don't have to jump into a new syntax just to provide two input documents.
16:51:04 [Norm]
Richard: Because this is the simple case, I was expecting it to be used on the command line and that's possibly going to make the output syntax different.
16:51:12 [MoZ]
+1 with Richard on output
16:51:32 [Norm]
...I was planning to implement sequences as directories, that means I'll always get a directory even when there's only a single file.
16:51:50 [Norm]
...I can work around it, but it seems a bit yucky.
16:52:41 [Norm]
Some discussion of the various possibilities
16:52:54 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:52:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ht, PGrosso, alexmilowski, richard, avernet, Andrew, MoZ
16:53:22 [Norm]
Alex: If I put an XSLT inside a pipeline, I shouldn't have to fiddle the syntax depending on whether or not a sequence is produced.
16:55:12 [Norm]
Straw poll: sequence or no sequence?
16:55:43 [ht]
I note that saxon 8 just concatenates multiple unnamed result-documents on stdout
16:57:42 [Norm]
Results: sequence: 2, no sequence: 4, abstain: 2
16:58:14 [Norm]
Henry: What about sequence on input, no sequence on output?
16:58:27 [Norm]
Alex: I'm not going to lie down in the road over sequences.
16:59:13 [Norm]
Alessandro: I think we shouldn't let constraints on the command line system influence how we design our language.
16:59:33 [Norm]
Richard: I'd agree, except that we're only discussing the abbreviated form. And that does seem to me to have a more direct connection to useability on the command line.
16:59:36 [Norm]
...It's there for simple cases.
17:00:00 [Norm]
Norm: Is there anyone who can't live with no sequences on input or output
17:00:25 [Norm]
None heard.
17:00:31 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
17:00:32 [Norm]
17:00:48 [Norm]
Henry: I'd like to encourage the wG to identify any issues between here and last call.
17:02:45 [Norm]
Some discussion of circular imports in pending mail.
17:04:20 [Norm]
17:04:25 [Zakim]
17:04:26 [Zakim]
17:04:26 [Zakim]
17:04:28 [Zakim]
17:04:29 [Zakim]
17:04:29 [Zakim]
17:04:30 [Zakim]
17:04:30 [Zakim]
17:04:34 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
17:04:36 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, Ht, PGrosso, avernet, alexmilowski, richard, Andrew, MoZ
17:04:44 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world visible
17:04:44 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'set logs world visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:04:49 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
17:04:53 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:04:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:05:17 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
19:00:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc