15:58:51 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 15:58:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/10-xproc-irc 15:58:53 Zakim, this is xproc 15:58:53 ok, Norm; that matches XML_PMWG()11:00AM 15:59:24 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 15:59:24 Date: 10 January 2008 15:59:24 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/10-agenda 15:59:24 Meeting: 97 15:59:24 Chair: Norm 15:59:25 Scribe: Norm 15:59:27 ScribeNick: Norm 15:59:58 zakim, please call ht-781 15:59:58 ok, ht; the call is being made 15:59:59 -Norm 16:00:01 +Norm 16:00:03 +Ht 16:00:06 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:00:13 On the phone I see Norm, Ht (muted) 16:00:23 +[ArborText] 16:00:34 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:00:34 On the phone I see Norm, Ht, PGrosso 16:01:12 avernet has joined #xproc 16:01:45 richard has joined #xproc 16:02:14 +??P40 16:02:16 zakim, ? is avernet 16:02:16 +avernet; got it 16:02:29 Regrets: Murray 16:02:46 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:02:46 On the phone I see Norm, Ht, PGrosso, avernet 16:02:48 +alexmilowski 16:02:56 +??P43 16:03:02 zakim, ? is me 16:03:02 +richard; got it 16:03:02 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 16:04:09 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:04:25 On the phone I see Norm, Ht, PGrosso, avernet, alexmilowski, richard 16:04:27 -avernet 16:05:07 +??P0 16:05:08 zakim, ? is avernet 16:05:09 +avernet; got it 16:05:22 Present: Norm, Henry, Paul, Alessandro, Alex, Richard 16:05:37 Topic: Accept this agenda? 16:05:37 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/10-agenda 16:05:45 Accepted 16:05:58 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 16:05:58 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/03-minutes 16:06:01 Accepted 16:06:07 Topic: Next meeting: telcon 17 January 2008? 16:06:14 AndrewF has joined #xproc 16:06:25 Present: Norm, Henry, Paul, Alessandro, Alex, Richard, Andrew 16:06:36 Topic: Face-to-face meeting in 2008? 16:07:03 +??P3 16:07:07 Norm: Anyone think we want to try to do that before the Tech Plenary? (Oct in Mandelieu) 16:07:08 zakim, ? is Andrew 16:07:10 +Andrew; got it 16:08:02 Henry: I can imagine that we are sufficiently finished with XProc in a few months that it will be time to turn our attention to our other task. 16:08:15 ...Sitting around a table would be the best way to start. 16:08:42 Norm wonders about Balisage... 16:09:11 Norm: Let's wait and see 16:09:25 Topic: Last call comments 16:09:25 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments.html 16:09:39 Comment 21: XProc localization 16:10:44 Norm outlines his message about making p:error take its description from an input port 16:11:01 Henry: This resonates with something I encountered when trying to simplify the early example pipelines. 16:11:12 ...Sometimes you'd like an alternative between an input port and an option. 16:11:45 ...For example, I'd like to be able to specify the XSLT stylesheet by way of an option instead of on an input port. 16:12:08 ...It's just laziness, but the idea of having an option and a port in a trading relationship seems very natural 16:12:34 Henry: The alternative is that folks won't provide descriptions for errors. 16:13:10 Henry: Do we want to consider adding this feature? 16:14:02 Richard: Can't you do it with a select and an expression? 16:14:11 Norm: No, because it gets turned into a string and the markup is thrown away. 16:14:35 Norm: I guess my reaction is, gosh that's a nice feature but aren't we done adding features? 16:14:42 Henry: It's not a feature it's a design pattern. 16:15:01 Richard: It seems to me that it's a bit excessive for what it does. 16:15:59 Support does not seem to be rising for the coocurrence constraint idea. 16:17:01 Norm: Do we want to make the description of p:error an input port? 16:18:06 Norm: I observe that it does require the user to make up some random document element for the message. 16:18:36 Richard: What about structured content? 16:18:53 Norm: No, way too much feature for now. We could remove the restrction to strings, but that didn't get support alst time it came up. 16:19:01 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:19:01 On the phone I see Norm, Ht, PGrosso, alexmilowski, richard, avernet, Andrew 16:19:11 Norm: Straw poll: Input or option? 16:19:43 Input wins with unanimity. 16:19:59 ACTION: Norm to change the spec to make error descriptions come from an input port on p:error 16:20:12 Topic: Split the spec into two or three parts? 16:21:36 Some discussion of why we might dot his 16:21:39 s/dot his/do this/ 16:21:51 Richard: I'm inclined to keep them together. 16:22:10 Richard: I think it's simpler for readers to ahve it all in one document. 16:23:50 Paul: The biggest advantage as far as I'm concerned is that you could advance different parts to PER, for example, independently. 16:24:38 Paul: For example, you can tell folks we haven't fiddled the language, we've just changed the steps. 16:24:58 Henry made apoint earlier about the fact that breaking it into pieces doesn't necessarily make it into separate RECs 16:25:09 Paul: I don't think it makes sense to do unless we make different RECs. 16:25:41 Norm: The editor doesn't feel strongly one way or the other, for what it's worth. 16:25:52 Henry: I think Paul's argument has value, but I don't feel that strongly either. 16:26:31 Some discussion of adding steps in the future 16:26:41 Henry: At worst, we can always change our minds later. 16:26:52 ...At V1.1 time, for example. 16:27:43 The chair doesn't hear consensus for splitting the document at this time. 16:28:10 Topic: Replace ignored namespaces with p:appinfo (or some such) 16:29:10 MoZ has joined #xproc 16:29:30 Norm summarizes how we got where we are 16:31:01 +??P5 16:31:25 Richard: One advantage to inventing your own namespace is that it designates the owner of the ifno. 16:31:28 s/ifno/info/ 16:32:25 Norm: We could mandate, suggest, or leave that problem to implementors 16:32:28 Alex: Why? 16:32:39 Henry: Because it's just not clear and is contradictory in the spec. 16:33:31 Henry: The core of my problem is that we invite people to put an element between two steps but we say it musn't change the flow. That's just bizarre. 16:34:41 Some discussion of the extent to which deleting them is appropriate. 16:36:47 Norm: I guess the position I've come to is that ignored namespaces introduce some complexity without much benefit over having a single element for this purpose. 16:37:02 Alex: What about making them top-level? 16:37:11 Henry: Yes, excpet that the spec tries to do that and it gets confusing. 16:38:38 Henry: Instead of putting it in subpipline, couldn't we put it in the prolog? 16:40:51 Richard: Does having a p:appinfo solve the placement problem? 16:40:55 Some discussion, basically yes. 16:41:22 Alex: I'm partial to the ignored namespace thing, but I don't mind having an appinfo, as long as we don't call it "appinfo". 16:42:07 Straw poll: keep ignored namespaces,or abandon them in favor of some element to be named later. 16:42:24 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:42:24 On the phone I see Norm, Ht, PGrosso, alexmilowski, richard, avernet, Andrew, MoZ 16:43:35 Results: 6 for new element, 1 for ignored namespaces, and 1 abstention,. 16:43:39 s/n,./n./ 16:43:52 Name the new element... 16:44:05 pipedata 16:44:11 userdata 16:44:16 pipeinfo 16:44:25 pragma 16:47:23 Results: pipedata: 3, userdata: 2, pipeinfo: 4, pragma: 3 16:48:01 The winner is p:pipeinfo. 16:48:23 Topic: Allow sequences on source and result of p:pipeline 16:49:10 Norm: I'm inclined to say not. 16:49:35 Alex: I'm inclined to allow them so that you don't have to jump into a new syntax just to provide two input documents. 16:51:04 Richard: Because this is the simple case, I was expecting it to be used on the command line and that's possibly going to make the output syntax different. 16:51:12 +1 with Richard on output 16:51:32 ...I was planning to implement sequences as directories, that means I'll always get a directory even when there's only a single file. 16:51:50 ...I can work around it, but it seems a bit yucky. 16:52:41 Some discussion of the various possibilities 16:52:54 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:52:54 On the phone I see Norm, Ht, PGrosso, alexmilowski, richard, avernet, Andrew, MoZ 16:53:22 Alex: If I put an XSLT inside a pipeline, I shouldn't have to fiddle the syntax depending on whether or not a sequence is produced. 16:55:12 Straw poll: sequence or no sequence? 16:55:43 I note that saxon 8 just concatenates multiple unnamed result-documents on stdout 16:57:42 Results: sequence: 2, no sequence: 4, abstain: 2 16:58:14 Henry: What about sequence on input, no sequence on output? 16:58:27 Alex: I'm not going to lie down in the road over sequences. 16:59:13 Alessandro: I think we shouldn't let constraints on the command line system influence how we design our language. 16:59:33 Richard: I'd agree, except that we're only discussing the abbreviated form. And that does seem to me to have a more direct connection to useability on the command line. 16:59:36 ...It's there for simple cases. 17:00:00 Norm: Is there anyone who can't live with no sequences on input or output 17:00:25 None heard. 17:00:31 Topic: Any other business? 17:00:32 None. 17:00:48 Henry: I'd like to encourage the wG to identify any issues between here and last call. 17:02:45 Some discussion of circular imports in pending mail. 17:04:20 Adjourned. 17:04:25 -PGrosso 17:04:26 -Ht 17:04:26 -avernet 17:04:28 -Andrew 17:04:29 -Norm 17:04:29 -MoZ 17:04:30 -richard 17:04:30 -alexmilowski 17:04:34 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 17:04:36 Attendees were Norm, Ht, PGrosso, avernet, alexmilowski, richard, Andrew, MoZ 17:04:44 RRSAgent, set logs world visible 17:04:44 I'm logging. I don't understand 'set logs world visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help 17:04:49 RRSAgent, set logs world-visible 17:04:53 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:04:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/10-xproc-minutes.html Norm 17:05:17 PGrosso has left #xproc 19:00:08 Zakim has left #xproc