IRC log of xproc on 2013-02-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:54:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:54:17 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:54:20 [Norm]
zakim, this will be xproc
14:54:20 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
14:54:41 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
14:54:41 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:54:41 [Norm]
14:54:41 [Norm]
Date: 20 Feb 2013
14:54:41 [Norm]
Meeting: 227
14:54:41 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:54:41 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:54:42 [Norm]
ScribeNick: norm
14:56:19 [Norm]
zakim, passcode
14:56:21 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'passcode', Norm
14:56:24 [Norm]
zakim, passcode?
14:56:24 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, Norm
14:56:38 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started
14:56:47 [Zakim]
+ +52708aaaa
14:57:47 [Zakim]
+ +420.6.026.9.aabb
14:58:07 [Norm]
zakim, aaaa is me
14:58:07 [Zakim]
+Norm; got it
14:58:11 [Norm]
zakim, aabb is Jim
14:58:11 [Zakim]
+Jim; got it
14:59:39 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
15:01:24 [Zakim]
15:01:50 [Zakim]
15:01:52 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended
15:01:52 [Zakim]
Attendees were +52708aaaa, +420.6.026.9.aabb, Norm, Jim
15:01:53 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started
15:02:00 [Zakim]
15:02:00 [Norm]
zakim, this is xproc
15:02:01 [Zakim]
Norm, this was already XML_PMWG()10:00AM
15:02:01 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; that matches XML_PMWG()10:00AM
15:02:26 [Zakim]
15:02:35 [Vojtech]
zakim, jeroen is me
15:02:35 [Zakim]
+Vojtech; got it
15:02:53 [Zakim]
15:03:01 [jfuller]
15:03:41 [Zakim]
15:05:07 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
15:05:08 [Norm]
Now zakim won't accept my passcode. Grrrr
15:05:28 [Zakim]
15:05:32 [Norm]
zakim, ??P21 is me
15:05:32 [Zakim]
+Norm; got it
15:07:31 [Zakim]
15:08:12 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Jim, Vojtech, Henry
15:08:20 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:08:20 [Norm]
15:08:26 [Norm]
15:08:31 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:08:31 [Norm]
15:08:34 [Norm]
15:08:39 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: 27 Feb 2013? 6 Mar 2013?
15:09:13 [Norm]
We'll meet 6 March; any regrets? None heard?
15:09:16 [Norm]
15:09:32 [Norm]
Topic: Review of open actions
15:09:41 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:09:58 [Norm]
None progress reported
15:10:05 [Norm]
Topic: Update on processor profiles
15:11:02 [Norm]
Norm: I sent a note to Michael, he expressed some continued reservations about some terminonology but said he'd take a closer look.
15:12:00 [Norm]
topic: Use cases and requirements
15:12:11 [Norm]
Jim: No progress.
15:12:29 [Norm]
Jim: Zip and unzip are still in the same boat. Need a few hours to get them ready to present.
15:12:47 [ht]
zakim, disconnect me
15:12:47 [Zakim]
ht is being disconnected
15:12:48 [Zakim]
15:14:09 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
15:14:09 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
15:14:11 [Norm]
is that better?
15:14:14 [Norm]
15:14:30 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
15:14:30 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
15:14:44 [Zakim]
15:14:56 [Zakim]
15:14:58 [ht]
zakim, code?
15:14:58 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, ht
15:15:02 [Norm]
zakim, p1 is me
15:15:02 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named 'p1'
15:15:05 [Norm]
zakim, ??p1 is me
15:15:05 [Zakim]
+Norm; got it
15:15:53 [Zakim]
15:16:02 [Norm]
zakim, ??P0 is ht
15:16:02 [Zakim]
+ht; got it
15:16:05 [Norm]
ht has alex
15:16:21 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Jim, Vojtech, Henry, Alex
15:16:39 [Norm]
Topic: Option inheritance
15:17:26 [Norm]
15:17:39 [Norm]
zakim, mut eme
15:17:39 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'mut eme', Norm
15:17:42 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
15:17:42 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
15:17:45 [Norm]
that's better right?
15:18:13 [Norm]
Talk amongst yourselves about the repeating with-option with parameters proposal.
15:18:30 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
15:18:30 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
15:19:23 [Norm]
Jim: On an initial reading, I like it.
15:20:09 [Norm]
Norm: It would work for things declared to be a map or a sequence; I think I like error for other cases.
15:20:14 [Norm]
Jim: For sequences, you'd get a concatenation of the values.
15:20:31 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
15:20:31 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
15:20:41 [Norm]
Jim: What about different values?
15:21:03 [Norm]
Vojtech: If we say concatenation, then we don't care; sequences can be heterogeneous.
15:21:19 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
15:21:19 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
15:21:35 [Norm]
Henry: The other choice would be error.
15:21:57 [Norm]
...How would you know a single element scalar is a sequence?
15:22:03 [Norm]
...Is that an error or is that an append
15:22:43 [Norm]
Norm: I think I'd do it by checking the type of the parameter.
15:22:56 [Norm]
Vojtech: I was assuming we'd have that kind of machinery
15:23:14 [Norm]
Henry: It makes better sense, but it's non-local and maybe not as ideal, but maybe it's the right thing.
15:23:30 [Norm]
Jim: Where does this fall in
15:23:42 [Norm]
Norm: In fixing parameters, I think
15:23:46 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
15:23:46 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
15:24:08 [Norm]
Vojtech: It's something we need for fixing parameters.
15:24:48 [Norm]
s/It's something we need for fixing parameters/The proposal assumes we're adopting XDM/
15:24:56 [Norm]
Norm: I think we have agreed to adopt XDM.
15:25:27 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
15:25:27 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
15:25:29 [jfuller]
+1 to XDM
15:26:34 [alexmilowski]
A story with or without the option inheritance ?
15:26:48 [Norm]
Vojtech: The inheritance proposal gets rid of the parameter story altogether, and works for any kind of option.
15:26:58 [Norm]
no worries
15:27:40 [Norm]
15:27:49 [Norm]
Henry: Why do I look at variables when I'm looking for options?
15:27:58 [Norm]
Vojtech: They share the same scope. There's no shadowing.
15:28:01 [Norm]
Henry: Variables shadow.
15:28:24 [Norm]
Vojtech: They are in the same "bag".
15:28:42 [Norm]
Norm: A reference to $foo can be either an in-scope variable or an in-scope option.
15:29:18 [Norm]
Henry: Telling people that options take their bindings from variables is too confusing.
15:29:30 [Norm]
Vojtech: I'm not saying that, it's the other way around, variables can get their bindings from options.
15:30:34 [Norm]
Henry: But the proposal says you can take option bindings from variables.
15:31:10 [Norm]
Vojtech describes an example using p:xslt that inherits the version attribute from an outer scope.
15:32:39 [Norm]
Vojtech: If you have option or variable you can say wether it propagates down and that's it.
15:33:03 [Norm]
...By that I mean that somewhere down below, there's an unbound option, it inherits from above.
15:33:52 [Norm]
...The second proposal was to allow p:with-option to be repeated so that we can provide the functionality of p:with-param.
15:33:58 [Norm]
...It's not the same, but you can do more or less the same things.
15:34:05 [Norm]
...It also applies to other options, not just to parameters.
15:34:35 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
15:34:35 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
15:34:59 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
15:34:59 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
15:35:15 [Norm]
zakim, who's talking?
15:35:26 [Zakim]
Norm, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jim (7%)
15:35:30 [Norm]
zakim, mute jim
15:35:30 [Zakim]
Jim should now be muted
15:35:35 [Norm]
zakim, unmute jim
15:35:35 [Zakim]
Jim should no longer be muted
15:35:41 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
15:35:41 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
15:36:07 [Norm]
Jim: Syntactically, it says "type=". Have we proposed that?
15:36:15 [Norm]
Vojtech: No, I just copied it.
15:36:32 [Norm]
Norm: I think it has to be "as=" to be consistent with XSLT and XQuery
15:36:43 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
15:36:43 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
15:36:58 [Norm]
Alex: I like this proposal, but I think there's an opportunity here to make variables/options/parameters language much clearer.
15:37:23 [ht]
+1 -- I think we need to see if we can unify all three
15:37:44 [Norm]
Jim: I agree. It would be nice to conflate these things.
15:38:08 [Norm]
...Were there proposals to have only one?
15:38:11 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
15:38:11 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
15:38:17 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
15:38:17 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
15:38:41 [Norm]
Alex: I think variables came later.
15:38:57 [Norm]
Jim: Options are the top level.
15:38:58 [ht]
I find this pair of sentences: "Variables and options share the same scope and may shadow each other"; "It is a static error (err:XS0004) if an option or variable declaration duplicates the name of any other option or variable in the same environment. That is, no option or variable may lexically shadow another option or variable with the same name."
15:39:12 [ht]
Confusing at best, contradictory at worst
15:39:33 [Norm]
ht, I think the salient point in the second sentence is "same environment"
15:39:55 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
15:39:55 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
15:39:59 [Vojtech]
There is even a test, I think, that checks that shadowing is not allowed
15:40:04 [ht]
But variables inherit through the environment. . .
15:40:57 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to review variable/option scope/shadow language and test cases
15:41:03 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
15:41:03 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
15:41:31 [Norm]
Vojtech: Optional options are also a problem.
15:41:37 [Norm]
Alex: Right.
15:41:50 [Norm]
Vojtech: Right now you have to write a huge choose and duplicate a bunch of stuff.
15:42:13 [ht]
Need to go look at simple functional languages in this regard, e.g. scheme. . .
15:42:23 [Norm]
Alex: We need to collect together all the things we're trying to solve here with a short description.
15:43:37 [Norm]
Jim: We have a few option-related proposals on the table.
15:43:50 [ht]
At the very least, I'd like to see if we can do the "only way to bind is to call a function" pure functional thing, and then describe everything else as syntactic sugar
15:44:03 [ht]
[which is the case for scheme, e.g.]
15:44:06 [Norm]
Norm: I'll try to get the chair to pull together a list as a starting point.
15:44:32 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
15:44:32 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
15:45:54 [Norm]
Topic: Document metadata
15:46:35 [Norm]
Jim: I've stepped away from it a bit. In my mind it can just be an implementation detail.
15:46:40 [Norm]
Norm: I think we'd need some syntax for it.
15:47:07 [Norm]
Jim: But where we specify that syntax doesn't necessarily ahve to be in the core of
15:47:37 [Norm]
15:47:56 [Norm]
Jim: What makes document metadata attractive to me is workflow without having to change your source.
15:48:02 [Norm]
...Something like state control markup language.
15:48:18 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
15:48:18 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
15:48:41 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
15:48:41 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
15:49:03 [Norm]
topic: Non-XML documents
15:49:27 [Norm]
Nothing new to be said.
15:49:33 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:49:45 [Norm]
Henry: I want a 30 second report on XProc day at XML Prague.
15:49:49 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
15:49:49 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
15:49:56 [Norm]
yes, please
15:50:20 [Norm]
Jim: I hadn't pushed XProcathon that hard.
15:50:34 [Norm]
...I just wanted to get hard core folks in the room and test the temperature of the community.
15:50:42 [Norm]
...I think there were 40-45 people in the room.
15:50:52 [Norm]
...And there was a lot of passion in the room.
15:51:16 [Norm]
Norm: And all but one or two of them were using XProc. Not just curiuos onlookers.
15:51:32 [Norm]
Jim: There was a lot of interest in simplification and ease of use.
15:51:51 [Norm]
...I had a lot of personal conversations from that meeting that were pretty exciting.
15:51:56 [alexmilowski]
Don't forget the cocoon user ...
15:53:06 [ht]
I agree the GUI line is not for a standard
15:53:18 [Norm]
Some discussion of the role of GUIs in ease of use.
15:53:37 [ht]
But a 'higher-level' XProc that compiles into actual XProc might be a possibility. . .
15:54:23 [jfuller]
15:54:44 [Norm]
Some discussion of the role of tutorials and user guides.
15:54:53 [Norm]
Alex: There was also a question of annotations and standardizing them.
15:55:03 [Norm]
...But there's nothing stopping you from doing that today, so go do that.
15:55:13 [Norm]
...There were neat ideas, but not all of them were about things we needed to do.
15:55:22 [ht]
We did, back in 2002, plan that the customer-facing version of the Markup Technology pipeline language would be visual. . .
15:55:32 [ht]
I might try to drag out some of our old story boards
15:55:43 [Norm]
Jim: There were two things to me: some exasperation and need for ease of use improvements, and then a bunch of folks using it for things I hadn't thought of.
15:55:51 [Norm]
...People are using it in production.
15:56:55 [Norm]
Alex: It was a full room, there are real users.
15:59:14 [Norm]
Jim: In the conference sessions, there was a tremendous variety of use cases for XProc, from things like farming to DAISY
15:59:25 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
15:59:25 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
15:59:28 [alexmilowski]
One power user in the WG could be interesting.
15:59:43 [Norm]
15:59:47 [Zakim]
15:59:49 [Zakim]
15:59:51 [Zakim]
15:59:59 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
16:00:02 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
16:05:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, ht, in XML_PMWG()10:00AM
16:05:02 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended
16:05:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, Vojtech, Jim, ht
17:20:03 [ht_home]
ht_home has joined #xproc
17:20:39 [liam]
liam has joined #xproc
18:24:55 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
19:56:22 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc