IRC log of xproc on 2012-10-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:03:13 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:03:13 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/11-xproc-irc
14:04:31 [Zakim]
+Murray
14:04:58 [ht]
Chair: Jim Fuller (pro tem)
14:05:09 [ht]
Meeting: XProc WG telcon
14:05:14 [ht]
Scribe: ht
14:05:19 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
14:05:40 [jfuller_]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-zip_unzip.html
14:05:44 [ht]
Topic: Action items
14:05:55 [ht]
JF: I've done my action wrt zip/unzip
14:06:03 [ht]
JF: See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-zip_unzip.html
14:06:17 [jfuller_]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2012Jan/0018.html
14:06:18 [jfuller_]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2012Jan/0018.html
14:06:18 [jfuller_]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2012Jan/0018.html
14:06:18 [jfuller_]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2012Jan/0018.html
14:06:38 [ht]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Oct/0015.html
14:07:06 [ht]
s/action wrt/action A-206-2 wrt/
14:07:40 [ht]
HST: No new reports on cleared actions
14:09:01 [ht]
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 [ht]
AM: Not yet
14:09:42 [jfuller_]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/requirements-v2-jim.xml
14:10:30 [ht]
JF: I've pulled this from a lot of sources, including AM/MM and telcons
14:10:40 [ht]
... We need to check the email lists as well
14:11:20 [ht]
JF: Has anyone reviewed this doc't?
14:11:41 [ht]
AM: Only just had a quick look
14:12:44 [ht]
JF: Poll on sections in draft req'ts doc't
14:12:52 [ht]
1) Fix Params
14:12:58 [ht]
[none opposed]
14:13:06 [ht]
2) None-XML content
14:13:11 [ht]
[none opposed]
14:13:17 [ht]
3) Compact syntax
14:13:31 [ht]
HST: I don't feel we have consensus on that
14:13:55 [ht]
JF: Yes, probably strike this, at least for now
14:14:31 [ht]
JF: Maybe we don't need this in the new spec. in any case
14:14:40 [ht]
JF: Propose to drop
14:14:45 [ht]
[none opposed]
14:15:09 [ht]
4) Drop XPath 1.0 support
14:15:49 [ht]
AM: If we're using the XDM more seriously, then XPath 2.0 comes as part of that package
14:16:13 [ht]
... 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 [ht]
JF: So we keep it
14:16:58 [ht]
HST: I'm confused, I thought AM said we have to get rid of XPath 1.0
14:17:21 [ht]
JF: Yes, but also change the title to focus on move forward to XDM
14:17:58 [ht]
HST: Vojtech?
14:18:08 [ht]
VT: I'm okay with dropping 1.0
14:18:33 [ht]
JF: Volunteers to put a proposal in email for this one?
14:18:42 [ht]
[silence gives consent]
14:19:06 [ht]
5) Expand allowed content of variables
14:19:29 [ht]
JF: I think I know where this is going
14:19:54 [ht]
VT: This could have some consequences for streaming? We will need to think about this a bit
14:20:27 [ht]
JF: I borrowed the Design Principles section, which mentions parallel/streaming, but I don't see any proposals
14:21:08 [ht]
AM: This doc't will need to refer to 1.0, and to the Solutions doc't
14:21:16 [ht]
... and admit where we drop/give up
14:22:25 [ht]
JF: Is there precedent for saying in a spec. that we didn't satisfy a req.
14:22:50 [ht]
HST: Dan Connolly would recommend revising a req. doc if the spec. itself doesn't cover parts of it
14:23:03 [ht]
AM: A lot of what we need is in MM's doc
14:23:44 [ht]
AM: Back to content of vars -- are we including parameters here?
14:24:21 [ht]
AM: We will have to come back to the rel'n between 4.1 and 4.5
14:24:58 [ht]
AM: There are some use cases that will drive this exploration
14:25:40 [ht]
JF: This raises the question of our commitment to backwards compatibility
14:25:57 [ht]
AM: I think we've agreed that fixing parameters will break parameters
14:26:18 [ht]
... We should do it as compatibly as possible, but not at the expense of a clean solution
14:26:50 [ht]
JF: It does look like the old syntax won't work as such -- change from port to, perhaps, option
14:27:30 [ht]
AM: Maybe a new Design Principle -- we will allow some 1.0 pipelines to fail as 2.0 pipelines
14:27:59 [ht]
MM: returning to streamability -- I tripped on this when I was working on the Solutions doc
14:28:27 [ht]
... Maybe that should be a Design Principle -- that we commit to avoiding things which force blocking
14:28:56 [ht]
JT: We have some cases (from MZ?) which already make streaming difficult or impossible
14:29:12 [ht]
MM: Right, that's why change it from Requirement to Design Principle
14:29:21 [ht]
JF: Indeed, that's how I have it in my new doc
14:29:50 [ht]
JF: I'd like at least some use cases, even if we don't have anything more concrete
14:30:12 [ht]
AM: There are some examples in 1.0, but yes, we can do better on that this time
14:30:28 [ht]
ACTION: MZ to give us some concrete use cases which stress streamability
14:31:18 [ht]
6) Fix non-step wrappers
14:31:30 [jfuller_]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2012Oct/0012.html
14:31:45 [ht]
VT: I have always treated [them] as steps
14:32:13 [ht]
AM: Do we have a preferred outcome?
14:32:40 [ht]
HST: They weren't originally steps because they have steps inside them
14:33:39 [ht]
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 [ht]
... 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 [ht]
AM: Can you fix it?
14:34:30 [ht]
VT: I've looked at this, and it's not easy whichever way we go
14:34:58 [ht]
JF: What does this give us?
14:35:36 [ht]
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 [ht]
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 [jfuller_]
http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/requirements-v2-jim.xml
14:37:09 [ht]
7) Step categories
14:37:41 [ht]
AM: There is a real issue here -- we need to decide how to manage the step life-cycle
14:38:22 [ht]
s@try/catch@try@
14:38:37 [ht]
JF: I agree, just not sure how it can be normative
14:39:17 [ht]
AM: Does this have to be framed in the req doc as a requirement
14:39:26 [ht]
HST: No, we can do whatever we like
14:40:09 [ht]
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 [ht]
HST: We need a step registry!
14:41:12 [ht]
HST: Seriously, at the recent TAG meeting it was suggested that many/most W3C specs are at least primarily registries
14:41:26 [ht]
... Maybe we would benefit by foregrounding that perspective a bit more
14:41:30 [ht]
AM: I like that
14:42:12 [ht]
JF: Would would that mean concretely for the req doc?
14:42:55 [ht]
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 [ht]
AM: That might mean 4.7 gets addressed in some other document
14:44:18 [ht]
JF: Do we need some discussion before we make this more specific?
14:44:40 [ht]
AM: Yes, I think email discussion is needed
14:44:56 [ht]
JF: OK, I'll try to kick that off
14:45:24 [ht]
HST: What about our short list from the beginning of the autumn?
14:45:30 [ht]
JF: Yes, they're all there
14:45:47 [ht]
AM: Really an action to the group to go back and confirm that nothing they care about has been missed
14:46:11 [ht]
AM: That list was re-minuted a few weeks ago. . .
14:46:23 [ht]
JF: Yes, I tried to be careful on that subject
14:46:43 [jfuller_]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2012Jan/0011.html
14:46:46 [ht]
Topic: Pain points
14:47:25 [ht]
JF: That was back in January, it sparked a lot of replies
14:48:12 [ht]
HST: What have we done to make XProc easier to use, to adopt, to get into?
14:48:48 [ht]
AM: So what we need in our use cases are pointing to cases where things are hard/should be easier
14:49:00 [ht]
... Getting rid of params is an obvious win there
14:49:13 [ht]
... What other _specific_ pain examples can we point to?
14:49:33 [ht]
AM: Placeholder in the use cases section: Usability
14:50:12 [ht]
JF: So that's an action to everyone to dig out their (un)favourite examples of annoying pipelines
14:51:29 [Zakim]
-Alex_Milows
14:51:29 [Zakim]
-Murray
14:51:31 [ht]
Adjourned
14:51:34 [Zakim]
-jfuller
14:51:40 [Zakim]
-Vojtech
14:51:44 [ht]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:51:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/11-xproc-minutes.html ht
14:51:56 [ht]
RRSAgent, make minutes world-visible
14:51:56 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world-visible', ht. Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:52:13 [ht]
RRSAgent, make logs world-readable
15:05:05 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, ??P36, in XML_PMWG()10:00AM
15:05:08 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended
15:05:10 [Zakim]
Attendees were Alex_Milows, jfuller, Vojtech, Murray
15:40:27 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
16:19:01 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc