15:26:28 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 15:26:28 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-xproc-irc 15:30:02 Norm has joined #xproc 15:30:16 zakim, this will be xproc 15:30:16 ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 30 minutes 15:30:22 rrsagent, pointer 15:30:22 See http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-xproc-irc#T15-30-22 15:30:58 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 15:30:58 Scribe: Norm 15:30:58 ScribeNick: Norm 15:30:58 Date: 26 Jan 2005 15:30:58 Chair: Norm 15:30:59 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/01/26-agenda.html 15:31:12 Norm has changed the topic to: XProc: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/01/26-agenda.html 15:31:30 Yes. This week. 15:31:52 I'm on vacation 2 Feb *and* 9 Feb, however 15:32:09 Bad timing really, but I need to lie on the beach for 10 days so there :-) 15:33:34 zakim, agenda+ Administrivia 15:33:34 agendum 1 added 15:33:41 zakim, agenda+ Technical: Requirements document 15:33:41 agendum 2 added 15:34:29 zakim, agenda+ Any other business 15:34:29 agendum 3 added 15:34:50 something is going to give, not clear what. 15:34:55 i may be late, apologies if so 15:55:05 rlopes has joined #xproc 15:57:15 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 15:57:22 +??P1 15:58:25 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 15:58:38 +Norm 15:58:46 zakim, ??P1 is rlopes 15:58:46 +rlopes; got it 15:59:17 +Alex_Milowski 15:59:19 ebruchez has joined #xproc 16:01:14 zakim, please call ht-781 16:01:14 ok, ht; the call is being made 16:01:15 +Ht 16:01:19 PGrosso has joined #xproc 16:01:55 +[ArborText] 16:02:04 zakim, who's on the phone? 16:02:04 On the phone I see rlopes, Norm, Alex_Milowski, Ht, PGrosso 16:02:36 + +1.519.538.aaaa 16:02:48 zakim, aaaa is Murray 16:02:48 +Murray; got it 16:03:07 +??P44 16:03:33 zakim, ??P44 is ebruchez 16:03:33 +ebruchez; got it 16:04:05 zakim, who's on the phone? 16:04:05 On the phone I see rlopes, Norm, Alex_Milowski, Ht, PGrosso, Murray, ebruchez 16:07:14 Present: Rui, Norm, Alex, Henry, Paul, Murray, Erik 16:07:19 Regrets: Andrew, Jeni 16:07:36 zakim, next agendum 16:07:36 agendum 1. "Administrivia" taken up [from Norm] 16:07:38 s/Regrets:/Regrets: Richard, / 16:07:48 Topic: accept this agenda? 16:07:48 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/01/26-agenda.html 16:07:56 Accepted 16:07:58 Topic: accept minutes from the previous teleconference? 16:07:58 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/01/19-minutes.html 16:08:06 Accepted. 16:08:11 Topic: next meeting: 2 Feb 2006. 16:08:11 Any regrets? 16:08:19 Norm is on vacation 2 Feb and 9 Feb 16:09:00 Paul to chair 2 Feb and 9 Feb 16:09:18 Topic: Tech Plenary 16:09:18 Registration is now open; discounted rates at the Sofitel end 6 Feb 2006. 16:09:39 Topic: Welcome Murray Malone 16:10:26 zakim, next agendum 16:10:34 agendum 2. "Technical: Requirements document" taken up [from Norm] 16:12:31 Norm suggests that his review is mostly editorial. 16:12:43 Murray: Reading from a "new user" perspective I found myself getting lost because the definition of terms followed the design principles 16:12:58 Murray: Hopefully we'll have a drawing of the model eventually. That also should probably precede the design principles. 16:13:31 Murray: I'd like to change the order of the design principles; from high-level to lower-level. So there's a progression. 16:14:00 Murray: I felt the same way about the list of requirements; starting with "this is an XML language" and moving through to more technical issues. 16:14:21 Murray: I sent out a bunch of editorial comments today, most are details. A few places where I don't understand. 16:14:23 q+ to ask about "component vocabulary" 16:14:41 ack ht 16:14:41 ht, you wanted to ask about "component vocabulary" 16:15:15 Henry: I propose that we delete "component vocabulary" unless and until we need it for something. 16:16:01 Norm: that works for me. 16:16:49 Norm: I proposed to use it in the definition of "Pipeline Document" but I'm happy to not use it. 16:17:14 Alex: In my mind it has a very specific purpose but if we aren't using it I guess it makes sense to remove it. 16:17:43 Alex: I'll remove it. 16:18:29 Alex: From my perspective, I think the purpose of that was to encapsulate the idea that in addition to things that have known vocabularies, there are pipeline steps that need to have their own things that they operate on. 16:19:44 Henry: All I'm suggesting is that we wait until we have a particular instance in front of us to talk about. 16:21:11 Alex: With respect to Norm's comment that we need "pipeline document", that's what I thought "specification language" meant. 16:21:32 Murray: "Pipeline document" sounds like something going through the pipeline. A "pipeline specification document" would work. 16:21:34 I aggree. 16:21:53 s/aggree/agree 16:22:25 Norm: I thought "specification language" was the description of the elements and attributes that one uses to *write* a pipeline specification document. 16:22:50 Consensus to use "Pipeline Specification Document" instead of "Specification Language" 16:23:06 Murray: What is the name for the thing being operated on? 16:23:40 Murray: Let's say we're talking about a DocBook manual for Awk. How do we refere to that document as it's going through the pipeline. 16:24:08 Henry: I don't know yet. Part of the problem is we're still discussing the right way to conceptualize what's going through the pipeline. 16:24:17 Murray: "Pipeline fodder"? 16:24:40 Alex: I see where you're going. Maybe we should come up with a term for it. 16:25:04 q+ to point out there's more than one 16:25:17 Erik: I just wanted to say that "the active thing" seems to imply that there's only one. 16:25:26 Erik: I'm not sure what active means in this case. 16:25:52 q- 16:26:12 Erik and Norm has covered my point 16:26:20 s/has/have/ 16:26:34 Norm: I don't think of a pipeline as having something flowing through it. Not a single thing, anway. 16:26:38 Murray: Then why call it a pipeline? 16:27:07 Erik: I agree with Norm. I still think we can call it a pipeline because we have stages that are linked together, but it's not like "liquid" flowing through the pipeline. 16:27:18 Murray: It's more like a sausage making machine. 16:27:29 Murray: Perhaps we're talking about source and target documents? 16:27:35 Erik: There may be many. 16:27:49 Every steps has inputs and outputs 16:28:00 they may be connected in complex way 16:28:16 Murray: For every step in the process there are zero or more inputs and outputs. For now, can we just call them source and target doucments. 16:28:21 Henry: No, I like inputs and outputs. 16:28:33 Henry: I think that's the right terminology. 16:29:22 Norm: We already use inputs and outputs in a lot of places. Let's stick with that until (or if) we find we need something else. 16:29:46 Alex: I'll add Input Document and Output Document to the vocabulary section. 16:32:09 Discussion of infoset vs. object model vs. PSVI discussion resumes. 16:33:08 Henry: Murray's point is well taken, we should say something that describes what we mean by infoset. 16:33:34 "infoset" is the name we give to any implementation of a data model for XML which supports the [Infoset] vocabulary 16:34:00 Murray: Many of the "technology neutral" requirements would be easier to understand if we made this clear up front. 16:34:46 Murray: The design principle "technology neutral" seems to be two parts: the technology wrt infosets and object models and there seems to be platform neutrality. 16:35:57 Norm points out we also have 4.11 16:36:09 Murray: then it looks like we have three flavors 16:37:52 General discussion of how to factor the design principles/requirements 16:39:26 Murray: 4.14 is a design principle. A requirement falls out of that. What I'm saying is that there are really high-level principles, platform neutrality, language neutrality, vendor neutrality, etc. Requirements fall out of some of these. 16:40:22 Murray: A lot of the requirements that are longer than one sentence include a design principle that needs to be pulled to the top. 16:40:39 PGrosso has joined #xproc 16:41:09 Murray: Consider 4.10. There's a design principle there, this language should be able to work with all existing XML technologies and be prepared to deal with new ones 16:42:26 Norm concurs if for no other reason than because it will make the technical requirements crisper 16:43:40 Alex: Consider 4.1 16:43:49 Murray: Software allows you to specify inputs and outputs. 16:44:20 Murray: Something about familiar software paradigms. 4.3 and 4.4 seem to fit in there too 16:45:50 Alex: Maybe this rolls back to a design requirment like "we have control over the flow of documents and their processing" 16:46:41 Murray: Hopefully we're not going to invent a new language form to express a while loop. We're going to use while. If that's what we need, we're going to use common paradigms. 16:47:25 Alex: 4.11 is a big one. I collapsed two things together. 16:47:46 They seemed similar. 16:49:07 Norm: 4.11, 4.14, [Murray: and 4.17] all collapse toghether as design principles 16:49:13 s/togheth/togeth/ 16:49:44 Alex; but we want to keep the requirement that it isn't API-based 16:50:05 Alex: In 4.17 there are issues that involve serialization that we need to be aware of 16:50:13 Murray: Can't we refer to something for this? 16:50:29 Alex: Yes. (XSLT 2.0 Serialization, the scribe assumes) 16:51:09 Murray: How about a design principle that says something like "not withstanding serialization deltas" and go on to explain that with a document reference. 16:51:29 Alex: I was going to put in the requirement that we're going to do what's already been done and point to the document 16:51:51 Alex: Design principle: we don't need to reinvent things done by other groups 16:53:31 Some discussion of 4.18 and whether or not it's part of 4.10 16:53:38 Alex: I'm going to try to roll them together 16:53:56 Murray: we need common naming. 16:55:16 Norm points out that there are two separate issues here but doesn't object to combining them in the spec 16:55:28 Alex: that gets us to 4.19. 16:56:27 Murray: I think iteration needs to be in the group with specifying inputs and outputs, conditionals, etc. 16:56:40 Murray: There just needs to be a progression in the requirements. 16:58:23 zakim, next agendum 16:58:23 agendum 3. "Any other business" taken up [from Norm] 16:59:11 Murray: The term "allow" isn't very helpful and something more specific is needed. 16:59:28 Norm: "allow" didn't bother me. 16:59:35 Murray: I did that in each intance 16:59:41 s/intance/instance/ 16:59:58 Murray: Allow can just mean "give permission" and that's not sufficient. 17:00:42 -Norm 17:00:43 -ebruchez 17:00:45 -rlopes 17:00:46 -Murray 17:00:47 ADJOURNED 17:00:48 -Alex_Milowski 17:00:49 -PGrosso 17:00:50 PGrosso has left #xproc 17:01:36 alexmilowski has left #xproc 17:05:47 disconnecting the lone participant, Ht, in XML_PMWG()11:00AM 17:05:49 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 17:05:51 Attendees were Norm, rlopes, Alex_Milowski, Ht, PGrosso, +1.519.538.aaaa, Murray, ebruchez 17:17:00 rrsagent, make logs public 17:17:08 rrsagent, make draft minutes 17:17:08 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make draft minutes', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help 17:17:13 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:17:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-xproc-minutes.html Norm 17:17:21 MSM? 17:21:35 Yes, Norm? 17:21:40 Sorry to have been awol 17:22:18 and i have a question for you - a colleague is asking how to suppress unwanted / unnecessary ns decls in xslt 2.0 output, and i can't remember / figure out the answer 17:23:36 ah, exclude-result-prefixes ... exactly. But MK's 2.0 book does not have "namespaces -- suppressing unwanted declarations" in the index. 1.0 book does 17:35:11 Sorry. Distracted getting the minutes out. MSM, are you still there? 18:40:22 hi, norm, i'm here if you are 19:01:54 MSM has joined #xproc 19:01:59 Hi MSM 19:02:02 Welcome back 19:02:35 Hi, Norm 19:02:37 is there a trick to exclude-namespace-prefixes in XSLT 2.0? 19:02:39 (or in 1.0, for that matter) 19:02:43 it doesn't seem to be producing the expected results. 19:02:54 namely, it seems to be having no effect whatsoever 19:03:03 Uhm. No. It should work. 19:03:06 Note that if you *use* the namespace, it may get output anyway. 19:03:17 yes 19:03:21 And it may also get output if you do an xsl:copy of a node that includes it, I think 19:03:37 or - ah, I bet writing something out in xsl:message doesn't count as serialization 19:03:54 If you send me a test case, I'll play around 19:03:54 Uhm. It might. 19:04:12 so might get the namespaces anyway 19:04:15 Yes 19:04:36 I find I have to ... sometimes to avoid the extra ns decls 19:04:43 I'll try to reduce the huge mass of templates Ian Jacobs is trying to fix into a small test case 19:04:53 What I wanted to ask is: are you available to chair the 2 Feb and 9 Feb XProc calls? I'll be on vacation and HT is at risk. 19:05:03 Hmm. You're probably not avail 2 Feb. How about 9 Feb? 19:05:09 2 Feb I'm in the XSL meeting 19:05:17 Right. I just thought of that. 19:05:18 9 Feb I'm here and willing to chair 19:05:25 or at least play traffic cop on the phone 19:05:42 Ok. I'll ask Paul Grosso to chair 2 Feb if there's quorem and I'm asking you to chair 9 Feb :-) 19:05:58 Thanks. I'll write it down in Evolution. 19:06:09 Perfect. 19:06:11 Much appreciated 19:06:27 agenda? 19:06:33 lol 19:06:55 lol 19:07:12 i mean, are you planning to write up an agenda before you go lie on the beach? or shall we wing it, or what 19:07:16 I'm pretty sure we'll spend at least the next two weeks just discussing the requirements doc 19:07:27 For which, I'm mostly willing to let alex drive 19:07:40 ok, so i'll expect to say "Let's take up our discussion of the requirements doc" and "any other business?" 19:07:47 fine 19:07:53 What I want is to push the group as hard as possible to be finished with that by the plenary. Or to spend no more than one day at th eplenary finishing. I want to use the f2f time to do technical work if at all humanly possible 19:07:55 alex seems to be working out well as an editor. 19:08:16 So far. I hope he can continue to deliver drafts in a timely fashion. 19:08:25 How was Murray today? Is he going to be able to get back into the nitti gritti? 19:08:38 rrsagent, please excuse us 19:08:38 I see no action items