IRC log of xproc on 2008-04-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:01:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:01:24 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:01:53 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:01:59 [Zakim]
15:02:01 [Zakim]
15:02:02 [Zakim]
15:02:10 [Zakim]
15:02:16 [Zakim]
15:02:18 [ruilopes]
Zakim, ?? is me
15:02:18 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
15:02:20 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:02:20 [Norm]
Date: 10 Apr 2008
15:02:20 [Norm]
15:02:20 [Norm]
Meeting: 107
15:02:20 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:02:21 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:02:23 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:02:58 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:02:58 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:03:00 [Zakim]
15:03:00 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PGrosso, Jeroen, Norm, ruilopes, Ht (muted)
15:03:26 [Zakim]
15:03:27 [Norm]
Zakim, jeroen is Voycheck
15:03:29 [Zakim]
+Voycheck; got it
15:03:35 [Norm]
Zakim, jeroen is Vojteck
15:03:35 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named 'jeroen'
15:03:43 [Norm]
Zakim, Voycheck is Vojteck
15:03:43 [Zakim]
+Vojteck; got it
15:03:45 [Zakim]
15:03:47 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:03:47 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:03:48 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PGrosso, Vojteck, Norm, ruilopes, Ht, alexmilowski, richard
15:04:03 [Norm]
Zakim, Vojteck is Vojtech
15:04:11 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named 'Vojteck'
15:04:29 [Norm]
Present: Paul, Vojtech, Norm, Rui, Henry, Alex, Richard
15:04:34 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:04:34 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PGrosso, Vojtech, Norm, ruilopes, Ht, alexmilowski, richard
15:05:23 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:05:52 [Norm]
Present: Paul, Vojtech, Norm, Rui, Henry, Alex, Richard, Andrew
15:06:11 [mzergaou]
mzergaou has joined #xproc
15:06:17 [Zakim]
15:06:20 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is Andrew
15:06:20 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:06:43 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-617
15:06:43 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
15:06:45 [Zakim]
15:07:09 [Norm]
Present: Paul, Vojtech, Norm, Rui, Henry, Alex, Richard, Andrew, Michael
15:07:19 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:07:19 [Norm]
15:07:28 [Norm]
15:07:34 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:07:34 [Norm]
15:07:39 [Norm]
15:07:44 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 17 April 2008?
15:08:09 [Norm]
Rui gives regrets for 17 and 24 April.
15:08:19 [Norm]
Alex gives regrets for 17 April.
15:08:35 [Norm]
Topic: Adjusting base URIs
15:09:18 [Norm]
Norm and Richard summarize.
15:09:41 [Norm]
15:11:31 [Norm]
Richard: we need to say what the base URI of an empty document node is.
15:11:50 [Norm]
...And we need to say what happens if a document in the pipeline has no base URI.
15:12:58 [Norm]
Richard: I also suggested a relativize function, but it turns out to be less useful, I think.
15:13:41 [Norm]
Alex: Is there anything different from the XPath 2.0 functions?
15:13:52 [Norm]
Richard: No, but they'll be available to XPath 1.0 processors if we put them in our namespace.
15:15:41 [Norm]
Norm: I think we want to make sure that XPath 1.0 implementations can do these things.
15:15:47 [mzergaou]
mzergaou has joined #xproc
15:15:50 [Norm]
Alex: I think this is a slippery slope.
15:16:23 [Norm]
Richard: If we don't put this in, XPath 1.0 impls will have to indepently invent this. This way, they have a uniform name and will be interoperable.
15:16:38 [Norm]
...Especially if we want to add some sort of relativize function.
15:17:06 [Norm]
Alex: I think if we do this, we must make it exactly the same as the XPath 2.0 functions.
15:17:59 [richard]
15:19:32 [Norm]
Some discussion of whether we have to invent our own errors or return the XPath 2.0 errors.
15:20:03 [Norm]
Norm: I'd be content to say that they return the F&O error codes.
15:20:26 [Norm]
Norm: I could go the other way as well.
15:21:38 [Norm]
The editor can decide when he's writing it up.
15:22:02 [Norm]
Proposed: Add p:base-uri() and p:resolve-uri() as spec'd by Richard, to be the same as the XPath 2.0 functions.
15:22:17 [Norm]
15:22:30 [Norm]
Topic: Error ports
15:22:42 [Norm]
15:23:00 [Norm]
Vojtech summarizes.
15:25:25 [Norm]
Norm: The catch step can read from an error port, so I think it follows that there must be ports that connect to it. Even if the user can't read it.
15:26:22 [Norm]
Some discussion of the motivation.
15:26:42 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone have any thoughts on what we might do or say differently?
15:27:05 [Norm]
Richard: I haven't looked in a while, there isn't any concept that a subpipeline aggregates the error ports of its steps or anything like that is there?
15:27:06 [Norm]
Norm: No.
15:27:40 [Norm]
Vojtech: I found this sentence most confusing "All steps have an implicit output port for reporting errors that must not be declared."
15:27:41 [mzergaou]
mzergaou has joined #xproc
15:28:07 [Norm]
Norm: Well, why don't we ask the editor to try to make this a little clearer.
15:28:51 [Norm]
Richard: Minor point: sometimes we call the "error ports" and sometimes "error output ports". It would be good to make them consistent.
15:29:09 [Norm]
Topic: Pipeline names/types
15:29:11 [Norm]
Norm summarizes.
15:31:22 [Norm]
Richard/Henry: Why can't the type be in no namespace?
15:32:03 [Norm]
Norm: Well, because it helps prevent name collisions if you import them.
15:32:20 [Norm]
Vojtech: The purpose of type is for importing, right?
15:32:22 [Norm]
Richard: Yes.
15:32:50 [Norm]
Vojtech: Removing the name is a bit strange, because you have to use this type. Everywhere else you use 'name'. I think that's a bit strange.
15:33:00 [Norm]
...We could have both.
15:33:21 [Norm]
...That's what I'd like: bring back the name.
15:33:44 [Norm]
Henry: We thought it was confusing to have both name and type.
15:34:05 [Norm]
Vojtech: You only need type for import.
15:34:24 [Norm]
Richard: It used to be the other way around, if you had a name but not a type, the type got constructed.
15:35:04 [Norm]
Richard: I agree it's dual purpose is a bit odd.
15:37:35 [Norm]
Norm: We used to have all sorts of magic, but now that we've removed that, I think maybe the simplest thing would be to put back both name and type.
15:37:55 [Norm]
Richard: We could have some magic syntax like "name='*'" to refer to the pipeline.
15:38:17 [Norm]
Norm: Er, yeah, well.
15:39:11 [Norm]
Richard: The name you invent isn't visible anywhere else, so that seems a bit odd.
15:39:21 [Norm]
More discussion about leaving 'step=' off.
15:39:28 [Norm]
15:39:36 [mzergaou]
mzergaou has joined #xproc
15:40:04 [Norm]
What are the options:
15:40:08 [Norm]
1. The status quo
15:40:25 [Norm]
2. Leaving 'step=' out makes the pipe refer to the ancestor pipeline.
15:40:31 [Norm]
3. Use '*' as the name of the ancestor pipeline
15:40:42 [Norm]
4. We could have both name and type attributes, functioning independently
15:40:58 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:40:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PGrosso, Vojtech, Norm, ruilopes, Ht, alexmilowski, richard, Andrew, MSM
15:44:19 [Norm]
Vojtech: If we put the name attribute on the pipeline, then it would also have to be on declare step.
15:46:45 [Norm]
15:46:45 [Norm]
<p:declare-step name="foo" type="x:one"...>
15:46:45 [Norm]
<p:declare-step name="bar" type="x:two"...>
15:46:45 [Norm]
<p:declare-step name="baz" type="x:three"...>
15:46:45 [Norm]
15:46:46 [Norm]
<p:input port="source">
15:46:48 [Norm]
<p:pipe step="foo" port="result"/>
15:46:50 [Norm]
15:49:09 [Norm]
Richard: I think the names on declare-step and pipeline shouldn't go in the surrounding environment.
15:49:50 [Zakim]
15:49:51 [Norm]
Norm: We could add that rule.
15:50:20 [Norm]
Norm: I don't think we have the idea that some steps are not steps.
15:50:35 [Norm]
Henry: Sure we do. None of variable, pipelinfo, or documentation are steps.
15:52:06 [Norm]
Straw poll: which do you prefer, 1-4.
15:53:26 [Norm]
Results: five for choice 4 and two for choice 2
15:53:38 [Norm]
Propose: we adopt choice 4.
15:53:47 [Norm]
15:54:04 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:54:41 [Norm]
15:54:50 [Norm]
15:54:55 [Zakim]
15:54:57 [Zakim]
15:54:58 [Zakim]
15:54:58 [Zakim]
15:54:58 [Zakim]
15:55:00 [Zakim]
15:55:00 [Zakim]
15:55:01 [Zakim]
15:55:03 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:55:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were PGrosso, Norm, ruilopes, Ht, alexmilowski, richard, Vojtech, Andrew, MSM
15:55:17 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
15:55:21 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:55:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
15:56:44 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc
15:56:52 [Norm]
We've adjourned, MSM
15:57:05 [mzergaou]
mzergaou has joined #xproc
15:57:17 [Norm]
RRSAgent, bye
15:57:17 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items