14:03:13 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:03:13 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/11-xproc-irc 14:04:31 +Murray 14:04:58 Chair: Jim Fuller (pro tem) 14:05:09 Meeting: XProc WG telcon 14:05:14 Scribe: ht 14:05:19 ScribeNick: ht 14:05:40 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-zip_unzip.html 14:05:44 Topic: Action items 14:05:55 JF: I've done my action wrt zip/unzip 14:06:03 JF: See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-zip_unzip.html 14:06:17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2012Jan/0018.html 14:06:18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2012Jan/0018.html 14:06:18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2012Jan/0018.html 14:06:18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2012Jan/0018.html 14:06:38 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Oct/0015.html 14:07:06 s/action wrt/action A-206-2 wrt/ 14:07:40 HST: No new reports on cleared actions 14:09:01 JF: Were you able to make any progress on splitting the use cases doct into "how we did it" vs. "what is still left" 14:09:05 AM: Not yet 14:09:42 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/requirements-v2-jim.xml 14:10:30 JF: I've pulled this from a lot of sources, including AM/MM and telcons 14:10:40 ... We need to check the email lists as well 14:11:20 JF: Has anyone reviewed this doc't? 14:11:41 AM: Only just had a quick look 14:12:44 JF: Poll on sections in draft req'ts doc't 14:12:52 1) Fix Params 14:12:58 [none opposed] 14:13:06 2) None-XML content 14:13:11 [none opposed] 14:13:17 3) Compact syntax 14:13:31 HST: I don't feel we have consensus on that 14:13:55 JF: Yes, probably strike this, at least for now 14:14:31 JF: Maybe we don't need this in the new spec. in any case 14:14:40 JF: Propose to drop 14:14:45 [none opposed] 14:15:09 4) Drop XPath 1.0 support 14:15:49 AM: If we're using the XDM more seriously, then XPath 2.0 comes as part of that package 14:16:13 ... We should have some kind of forward-compatible model, so that if a new version comes out, we don't rule out support 14:16:30 JF: So we keep it 14:16:58 HST: I'm confused, I thought AM said we have to get rid of XPath 1.0 14:17:21 JF: Yes, but also change the title to focus on move forward to XDM 14:17:58 HST: Vojtech? 14:18:08 VT: I'm okay with dropping 1.0 14:18:33 JF: Volunteers to put a proposal in email for this one? 14:18:42 [silence gives consent] 14:19:06 5) Expand allowed content of variables 14:19:29 JF: I think I know where this is going 14:19:54 VT: This could have some consequences for streaming? We will need to think about this a bit 14:20:27 JF: I borrowed the Design Principles section, which mentions parallel/streaming, but I don't see any proposals 14:21:08 AM: This doc't will need to refer to 1.0, and to the Solutions doc't 14:21:16 ... and admit where we drop/give up 14:22:25 JF: Is there precedent for saying in a spec. that we didn't satisfy a req. 14:22:50 HST: Dan Connolly would recommend revising a req. doc if the spec. itself doesn't cover parts of it 14:23:03 AM: A lot of what we need is in MM's doc 14:23:44 AM: Back to content of vars -- are we including parameters here? 14:24:21 AM: We will have to come back to the rel'n between 4.1 and 4.5 14:24:58 AM: There are some use cases that will drive this exploration 14:25:40 JF: This raises the question of our commitment to backwards compatibility 14:25:57 AM: I think we've agreed that fixing parameters will break parameters 14:26:18 ... We should do it as compatibly as possible, but not at the expense of a clean solution 14:26:50 JF: It does look like the old syntax won't work as such -- change from port to, perhaps, option 14:27:30 AM: Maybe a new Design Principle -- we will allow some 1.0 pipelines to fail as 2.0 pipelines 14:27:59 MM: returning to streamability -- I tripped on this when I was working on the Solutions doc 14:28:27 ... Maybe that should be a Design Principle -- that we commit to avoiding things which force blocking 14:28:56 JT: We have some cases (from MZ?) which already make streaming difficult or impossible 14:29:12 MM: Right, that's why change it from Requirement to Design Principle 14:29:21 JF: Indeed, that's how I have it in my new doc 14:29:50 JF: I'd like at least some use cases, even if we don't have anything more concrete 14:30:12 AM: There are some examples in 1.0, but yes, we can do better on that this time 14:30:28 ACTION: MZ to give us some concrete use cases which stress streamability 14:31:18 6) Fix non-step wrappers 14:31:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Oct/0012.html 14:31:45 VT: I have always treated [them] as steps 14:32:13 AM: Do we have a preferred outcome? 14:32:40 HST: They weren't originally steps because they have steps inside them 14:33:39 VT: When I implemented, I saw two interpretations -- that they barely exist, they are just a kind of typed sub-pipeline, OR that they are a compound step with their own semantics 14:33:58 ... I feel as if we shifted from one view to the other as we went along, without ever really cleaning it up 14:34:17 AM: Can you fix it? 14:34:30 VT: I've looked at this, and it's not easy whichever way we go 14:34:58 JF: What does this give us? 14:35:36 AM: It would give us the ability to have a syntax which maps to a semantics, w/o having to have semantics which essentially just attaches to a content model ('subpipeline') 14:36:27 VT: I agree -- note that p:group is currently schizophrenic -- it's a compound step, except inside p:try/catch, where it's a non-step wrapper 14:37:08 http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/requirements-v2-jim.xml 14:37:09 7) Step categories 14:37:41 AM: There is a real issue here -- we need to decide how to manage the step life-cycle 14:38:22 s@try/catch@try@ 14:38:37 JF: I agree, just not sure how it can be normative 14:39:17 AM: Does this have to be framed in the req doc as a requirement 14:39:26 HST: No, we can do whatever we like 14:40:09 AM: We should put a meta-requirement that we write 2.0 so that changes to steps don't require a new language document 14:40:16 HST: We need a step registry! 14:41:12 HST: Seriously, at the recent TAG meeting it was suggested that many/most W3C specs are at least primarily registries 14:41:26 ... Maybe we would benefit by foregrounding that perspective a bit more 14:41:30 AM: I like that 14:42:12 JF: Would would that mean concretely for the req doc? 14:42:55 AM: Two new requirements: we need a strategy for reving steps w/o reving the language; maybe some kind of step registry should be considered 14:43:08 AM: That might mean 4.7 gets addressed in some other document 14:44:18 JF: Do we need some discussion before we make this more specific? 14:44:40 AM: Yes, I think email discussion is needed 14:44:56 JF: OK, I'll try to kick that off 14:45:24 HST: What about our short list from the beginning of the autumn? 14:45:30 JF: Yes, they're all there 14:45:47 AM: Really an action to the group to go back and confirm that nothing they care about has been missed 14:46:11 AM: That list was re-minuted a few weeks ago. . . 14:46:23 JF: Yes, I tried to be careful on that subject 14:46:43 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2012Jan/0011.html 14:46:46 Topic: Pain points 14:47:25 JF: That was back in January, it sparked a lot of replies 14:48:12 HST: What have we done to make XProc easier to use, to adopt, to get into? 14:48:48 AM: So what we need in our use cases are pointing to cases where things are hard/should be easier 14:49:00 ... Getting rid of params is an obvious win there 14:49:13 ... What other _specific_ pain examples can we point to? 14:49:33 AM: Placeholder in the use cases section: Usability 14:50:12 JF: So that's an action to everyone to dig out their (un)favourite examples of annoying pipelines 14:51:29 -Alex_Milows 14:51:29 -Murray 14:51:31 Adjourned 14:51:34 -jfuller 14:51:40 -Vojtech 14:51:44 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:51:44 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/11-xproc-minutes.html ht 14:51:56 RRSAgent, make minutes world-visible 14:51:56 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world-visible', ht. Try /msg RRSAgent help 14:52:13 RRSAgent, make logs world-readable 15:05:05 disconnecting the lone participant, ??P36, in XML_PMWG()10:00AM 15:05:08 XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended 15:05:10 Attendees were Alex_Milows, jfuller, Vojtech, Murray 15:40:27 ht has joined #xproc 16:19:01 Zakim has left #xproc