14:55:31 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:55:31 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/12/03-xproc-irc 14:55:34 zakim, this will be xproc 14:55:34 ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 14:58:48 XML_PMWG()10:00AM has now started 14:58:55 +Loren_Cahlander 14:59:22 +[IPcaller] 15:00:26 +Alex_Milows 15:00:38 ht has joined #xproc 15:00:39 zakim, passcode? 15:00:39 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Norm 15:00:57 Thanks, Zakim, I appreciate the way you hung up on me there. 15:01:13 +Norm 15:01:17 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 15:01:20 zakim, who's here? 15:01:20 On the phone I see Loren_Cahlander, [IPcaller], Alex_Milows, Norm 15:01:22 On IRC I see alexmilowski, ht, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, jfuller, lcahlander, liam 15:01:28 zakim, IPcaller is jfuller 15:01:28 +jfuller; got it 15:01:35 +??P26 15:01:54 Present: Loren, Jim, Alex, Norm, Henry 15:03:28 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 15:03:28 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 15:03:28 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/12/03-agenda 15:03:28 Date: 3 Dec 2014 15:03:28 Meeting: 260 15:03:29 Chair: Norm 15:03:31 Scribe: Norm 15:03:33 ScribeNick: Norm 15:03:35 Topic: Accept this agenda? 15:03:37 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/12/03-agenda 15:03:39 Accepted. 15:03:42 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 15:03:45 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2014/11/26-minutes 15:03:47 Accepted. 15:03:52 Topic: Next meeting 15:03:52 Proposed: 10 December 2014 does anyone have to give regrets? 15:04:06 No regrets heard; Norm observes he'll just be back from vacation. 15:04:20 Topic: Review of open action items 15:04:57 It appears A-252-01, A-256-01, and A-258-02 are completed. 15:05:09 Topic: Publication of a FPWD 15:06:36 Norm explains the new drafts. No technical changes, just pubrules cleanup. 15:07:04 Norm asks Alex about the high order bit on his reviews. 15:07:14 can the heavy breather mute ;) 15:07:29 zakim, mute ht 15:07:29 ht should now be muted 15:07:43 Alex: A summary of what has changed is needed. 15:08:12 Norm: Yeah, that's fair. We have a change log but it's not been well maintained. 15:09:10 Norm: With a changelog and an attempt to address some of the editorial issues, would that be enough? 15:09:21 Alex: Yes. But it would be good to do as much as we can. 15:10:20 Alex: We should also add a "this is a work in progress" statement. 15:10:42 +1 to Alex suggestion 'to work in progress' 15:11:56 Jim: I'm still working my way through them, but I haven't seen anything controversial yet. 15:12:49 Norm: I'm not sure we can make 8 Dec, I might change them to 15 Dec, which is the last Tuesday before the publishing moratorium. 15:12:59 ...We need director's approval for the short names, etc. 15:13:51 Norm: Proposed: Publish these drafts as our FWPD. Editor will attempt to make editorial improvements as suggested in email and publish them today. If no objections are raised, they'll be published as presented. 15:14:33 No objections heard. 15:14:35 Accepted. 15:15:04 Topic: Discussion of the from attribute. 15:15:13 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Dec/0008.html 15:15:58 Jim summarizes the email thread. 15:16:27 Jim: Some positive reaction, some detailed syntax discussions. 15:18:29 Norm: Liam expressed some concern about microsyntaxes but I don't see where that wound up in the archives. 15:18:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Dec/0012.html 15:18:45 Jim: Vojtech had an interesting twist, but he's not on the call today. 15:19:10 q+ to say "yes but" 15:19:31 ack ht 15:19:32 ht, you wanted to say "yes but" 15:19:55 Henry: Yes, but...my first reaction was positive and my second with my sort of URI-semantics-worrier hat on was sort of negative. 15:20:39 ...What would make sense would be to put a hash in front of the step name. So if we said pipe="#step1" it would make sense to view the step name as a name. 15:21:20 ...In which case fragids should reference the names. This suggests that what we really ought to do is treat the step name as a part of the URI so that we can use the fragid to identify the port. 15:21:44 ...But that's a little tricky, because then we're saying the base URI for interpreting this attribute is not the URI of the document, but is the URI of the document ending with a slash. 15:22:08 ...So that we can then resolve another step in the path correctly to get us to the step and then use the fragid to get us to the port. 15:23:07 Norm: Step names aren't unique; you can find the right one "from the bottom" but not "from the top". 15:23:27 Henry: The URI syntax is it's strength and its weakness, it invokes a set of conditions that we don't satisfy. 15:23:49 Jim: I thought we could just make up any syntax we wanted. 15:23:59 Henry: Yes, we could do that. 15:24:07 Jim: Is it worth bending over backwards to get the URI syntax to work? 15:24:30 Henry: I wasn't trying to do that, I was just trying to leverage the analogy. I think attempting to unify pipe with document is a bridge too far. 15:25:42 Norm: I also worry that it would encourage people to imagine they could do strange things like point into steps in other pipelines. 15:26:01 s/make up any/make up any id/ 15:26:04 Jim: Yes, there are syntactic issues. 15:26:39 s/it's strength/its strength/ 15:26:45 Jim: The port@mystep variation is interesting. I think people like it. 15:26:58 ...That sort of emaily form is fundamentally ambiguous. 15:27:06 Norm: How is that ambiguous? 15:27:57 I could live with it, but I ( and I think Vojtech also) prefer the other order 15:28:10 Jim: It's not a microsyntax that's defined anywhere else, so users won't have any preconceived expectations. 15:28:12 I really don't want to view this as a URI at all 15:28:55 Norm: I agree with Henry; I'm not opposed to a URI if it makes us all warm and fuzzy, but it isn't a goal. 15:29:09 My reason for the order is that that works better with defaulting to the primary output port 15:30:20 Norm: Stepping back just a bit, I'd like to make sure we have continuity over all our shortcuts before we start trying to put them in the spec. 15:30:29 I.e. xxx defaults to xxx?result, rather than result?xxx (for some value of ?) 15:30:41 Jim: I hear what you're saying. 15:31:27 Norm: Maybe proposals for syntactic shortcuts could go on the comments for the issue about syntactic shortcuts. 15:31:31 +1 15:32:20 ACTION: A-260-01 Jim to add the from proposal as a comment on the syntactic shortcuts issue 15:33:06 Norm: And I'm not saying that has to be today. 15:33:33 Two options -- replace, or (ap|pre)pend 15:33:42 I guess that's three options 15:33:42 Norm: I wonder about how @from (or @pipe or @whatever) interacts with a child p:pipe element. 15:34:18 I like error 15:34:21 Norm: I think it would have to be an error if we don't allow both. 15:35:09 Norm worries about what happens we people want to put other sorts of bindings in the attribute value. 15:35:21 s/we people/when people/ 15:35:47 s/Two options/two options wrt appearance of from|pipe attr _and_ p:pipe child. . ./ 15:36:10 Jim: I think Henry didn't like the name @pipe. 15:36:27 Henry: I'm tentatively persuaded by your reply; I'll sit on it a bit longer and see how I feel when I see more examples. 15:37:11 ...I'm still slightly unhappy about the lack of directionality which with hindsight I should have felt for p:pipe as well. But it seems worse in the attribute. 15:37:20 ...Write it up as @pipe and I'll think about it some more. 15:37:32 Jim: I'm not strongly attached to one or the other. 15:38:04 Topic: Discussion of allowing p:variable within atomic steps 15:38:12 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2014Dec/0010.html 15:38:30 Jim: I had some IRC conversations about it, but there hasn't been any email replies. 15:38:50 zakim, mute ht 15:38:50 ht should now be muted 15:39:03 Jim: What would the binding be for the variable's select expression. 15:39:51 Norm: I think it has to be the default readable port for the step in which it occurs. 15:40:20 Jim: As we consider syntax, this doesn't have as big an impact as the pipe one. It does fix the ugly p:group idiom. 15:40:35 It encourages good software engineering practice 15:40:44 Norm: I think it was well received last week. 15:40:48 I.e. give things names, don't re-write expressions 15:41:09 Jim: The next step would be how awkward is it to refer to the variable when you're using the shortcut syntax on the step itself. 15:42:07 Norm repeats Henry's arguments against from last week. Henry recants. 15:42:29 Henry: I think it should be an error to refer to such a variable. Either of the other ways will result in confusion for someone. 15:43:22 ...If it's not an error then folks who think of the shortcuts work like nested p:with-options, they'll think it should work one way, and folks just reading the pipeline will think it should work the other way. 15:43:59 -jfuller 15:43:59 ...I think folks using nested p:variables are reasonable sophisticated. We should ask for feedback and if there's conflicting results, we'll have to make it an error. 15:44:13 completely agree, 15:44:18 my call dropped, coming back 15:44:24 Norm: I think error makes good sense, that hadn't occurred to me. 15:44:53 Norm considers the implementation details and shudders a bit. 15:45:01 +[IPcaller] 15:45:01 back 15:45:58 ACTION: A-260-02 Jim to put the proposal in a new issue for the spec. 15:46:22 Topic: Any other business? 15:47:02 Norm: We're still thinking about a f2f in Europe in June but it's too early to schedule. 15:47:28 Henry: The other possibility would be east coast of the US in August when I'll be coming through. 15:48:42 +1 to Japan (or Marrakech) 15:49:03 Adjourned. 15:49:06 -Alex_Milows 15:49:07 -Loren_Cahlander 15:49:07 -[IPcaller] 15:49:09 -Norm 15:49:12 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:49:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/03-xproc-minutes.html Norm 15:49:13 -ht 15:49:15 XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended 15:49:15 Attendees were Loren_Cahlander, Alex_Milows, Norm, jfuller, ht, [IPcaller]