IRC log of xproc on 2008-03-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:53:07 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:53:07 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:53:45 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:53:45 [Norm]
Date: 27 March 2008
14:53:45 [Norm]
14:53:45 [Norm]
Meeting: 105
14:53:45 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:53:45 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
14:53:46 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:53:48 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:54:02 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: XProc WG meets 27 Mar:
14:55:32 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
14:58:19 [Norm]
Regrets: Murray
14:58:50 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
15:00:21 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:00:31 [Zakim]
15:00:54 [Zakim]
15:01:18 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:01:39 [Norm]
Regrets: Murray, Andrew
15:01:46 [Zakim]
15:01:50 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:01:50 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:02:11 [ruilopes]
ruilopes has joined #xproc
15:03:45 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:03:45 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:03:47 [Zakim]
15:04:24 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
15:06:00 [Zakim]
15:06:09 [ruilopes]
Zakim, [is me
15:06:10 [Zakim]
I don't understand '[is me', ruilopes
15:06:17 [ruilopes]
Zakim, [ is me
15:06:17 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
15:06:36 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:06:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, richard, Ht, ruilopes
15:06:58 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Paul, Richard, Henry, Rui
15:07:21 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:07:21 [Norm]
15:07:27 [Norm]
15:07:34 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:07:34 [Norm]
15:07:38 [Norm]
15:07:52 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 3 April 2008?
15:08:01 [Norm]
Henry gives regrets.
15:08:38 [Norm]
Norm observes that we'll all be on Summer Time starting 3 April, so adjust your calendars accordingly
15:08:52 [Norm]
Topic: Henry's alternate proposal
15:09:01 [Norm]
15:09:10 [Norm]
Henry summarizes.
15:16:35 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
15:16:46 [Norm]
Discussion reveals that Henry may have spec'd something other than what we think we intended.
15:17:14 [Norm]
The order of p:with-options has no bearing on the result of the call, irrespective of what the alternate draft currently says.
15:17:39 [Norm]
Richard: What's in scope when you're in the pipeline?
15:18:31 [Norm]
Norm: Only the preceding siblings
15:18:53 [Norm]
Richard: So if you screw up and refer to something that is defined later, then it might accidentally be bound.
15:19:55 [Norm]
Richard: An implementation must behave as if it did this
15:20:06 [Norm]
...It evaluates the passed options, in any order
15:20:21 [Norm]
...stores them in a temporary place
15:20:43 [Norm]
...then goes through the options in the pipeline, in order, and takes their value from the secret place or computes the default
15:20:56 [ht]
I think it is sufficient to remove ", with the addition of variable bindings for all options whose declarations precede its declaration in the surrounding step's signature" from 5.7.3 in the alternate draft
15:21:01 [Norm]
Norm: And crucially it can't see any bindings that come from the ancestors of the call
15:21:51 [Norm]
Richard: So another way would be to check at compile time that the expressions don't refer to variables they aren't allowed to reference and do away with the temporary place
15:22:28 [Norm]
Henry: The way the alternative draft achieves that is by specifying what the variable bindings are in the context.
15:22:35 [Norm]
s/context/XPath context/
15:22:58 [Norm]
...For with-option, the variable bindings are determined by the environment of the surrounding step
15:23:20 [Norm]
...For option default, the variable bindings consist only of bindings for options who's decl.s precede it in the declaration
15:24:57 [Norm]
Some discussion of dynamic vs. static checking and why we went with dynamic checking.
15:24:57 [Norm]
Richard: This is the same as the case with XSLT parameters?
15:25:00 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, I believe so.
15:25:47 [Norm]
Norm: The one point I'd like to close on is whether we're going to allow variables mixed into subpipelines.
15:27:02 [Norm]
Norm expresses why he needs the variables to be first.
15:27:17 [Norm]
Richard: I agree
15:27:43 [Norm]
Proposal: accept the alternate draft, amended as necessary, and with the explicit provision that all variable bindings occur at the beginning of the subpipeline.
15:28:03 [Norm]
15:28:26 [Norm]
Topic: What else do we need to do before we publish a draft.
15:28:39 [Norm]
Henry: I should update the DTD and the W3C XML Schema
15:28:45 [Norm]
...And Norm should update the RNG schema
15:29:44 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
15:30:08 [Norm]
Norm: We have a proposal for the name/media type nexus
15:30:14 [Norm]
Norm: Henry's action on base URIs is still open
15:30:51 [Norm]
Norm: I think that if we came to some conclusion about the base URI question and we agree on the media type/names question, that we're done. We should publish a new draft.
15:31:18 [Norm]
Norm: Not a last call, just a regular working draft because we've changed so much.
15:31:38 [Norm]
Norm: Can anyone think of anything else on the critical path?
15:32:00 [Norm]
Topic: Names and media types
15:32:20 [Norm]
Henry made a proposal.
15:32:22 [Norm]
15:32:49 [Norm]
Henry summarizes.
15:33:11 [Norm]
PGrosso, can you scribe for a moment or two?
15:34:30 [PGrosso]
Henry talks about the fact that, if we go to Rec, we might want to have a media type.
15:34:41 [Norm]
scribe: pgrosso
15:34:47 [Norm]
scribenick: pgrosso
15:35:13 [PGrosso]
A specific media type would, in theory, allow us to have a fragment identifier syntax that allows us to point into a pipeline.
15:35:50 [PGrosso]
But it's unlikely that real world clients would really support such a frag id syntax, so registering a media type with such a fragid syntax would be misleading.
15:36:12 [PGrosso]
So Hnery concludes that we shouldn't define our own media type.
15:36:29 [PGrosso]
15:37:32 [PGrosso]
Norm wants to simplify, so he tends to agree with Henry's conclusion.
15:38:22 [PGrosso]
Norm figures people wouldn't be putting xml:id on things, so it might be nice to point to things by name rather than have to rely on tumblers (the element() xpointer scheme).
15:38:41 [PGrosso]
But on balance he leans toward the simpler (no special media type).
15:39:17 [PGrosso]
Henry says we could, in the future, define an xpointer scheme called xproc() to allow us to point into pipelines.
15:40:03 [PGrosso]
We appear to have consensus to go with no special media, so appendix C or D or whatever will be reduced to a statement that we use application/xml for pipelines.
15:40:59 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
15:41:11 [PGrosso]
Henry claims there are reasons other that pointing for steps to have names, so he does not proposed to remove secton 2.1.1, but he does suggest a change to the automatic naming mechanism to use tumblers.
15:42:01 [PGrosso]
Norm is happy to go with tumblers. Paul and Henry prefer tumblers.
15:43:51 [Norm]
scribenick: Norm
15:44:04 [PGrosso]
Henry's previously referenced email has the specific suggestion (levels separated by periods).
15:44:06 [Norm]
Richard: We really don't want automatically generated names to ever be able to conflict with a real name
15:44:21 [Norm]
Norm: So: periods or slashes?
15:44:26 [Norm]
Paul: Periods are fine.
15:44:55 [Norm]
Proposed: Tumblers seperated by periods, beginning with a "!"
15:45:29 [Norm]
15:45:55 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:46:03 [Norm]
None heard.
15:46:20 [Norm]
15:47:00 [Zakim]
15:47:02 [Zakim]
15:47:03 [Zakim]
15:47:03 [Zakim]
15:47:03 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:47:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, PGrosso, richard, Ht, [IPcaller], ruilopes
15:47:07 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
15:47:10 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:47:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
15:47:47 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
16:17:58 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
18:02:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
18:27:25 [Norm]
RRSAgent, bye
18:27:25 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items