IRC log of xproc on 2012-01-19
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:52:10 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #xproc
- 14:52:10 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/19-xproc-irc
- 14:52:13 [Norm]
- zakim, ??p2 is Norm
- 14:52:13 [Zakim]
- +Norm; got it
- 14:52:53 [Norm]
- Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
- 14:52:53 [Norm]
- Date: 19 January 2012
- 14:52:53 [Norm]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/19-agenda
- 14:52:53 [Norm]
- Meeting: 206
- 14:52:53 [Norm]
- Chair: Norm
- 14:52:54 [Norm]
- Scribe: Norm
- 14:52:56 [Norm]
- ScribeNick: Norm
- 14:55:22 [PGrosso]
- PGrosso has joined #xproc
- 14:58:30 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 14:58:56 [Norm]
- zakim, +[ipcaller is jfuller
- 14:58:56 [Zakim]
- sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named '+[ipcaller'
- 14:59:03 [Norm]
- zakim, ipcaller is jfuller
- 14:59:03 [Zakim]
- +jfuller; got it
- 14:59:21 [Vojtech]
- Vojtech has joined #xproc
- 15:00:21 [jfuller]
- jfuller has joined #xproc
- 15:00:41 [Zakim]
- +[ArborText]
- 15:00:42 [alexmilowski]
- alexmilowski has joined #xproc
- 15:01:02 [Norm]
- http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
- 15:01:47 [Zakim]
- +Alex_Milows
- 15:02:11 [Zakim]
- +Carine
- 15:02:11 [Zakim]
- +Vojtech
- 15:03:18 [Norm]
- zakim, who's here?
- 15:03:18 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Norm, jfuller, PGrosso, Alex_Milows, Vojtech, Carine
- 15:03:25 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see alexmilowski, jfuller, Vojtech, PGrosso, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, Liam, caribou
- 15:04:21 [Norm]
- Present: Norm, Jim, Paul, Alex, Vojtech, Carine
- 15:04:41 [Norm]
- Regrets: Mohamed
- 15:04:59 [Norm]
- Topic: Accept this agenda?
- 15:04:59 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/19-agenda
- 15:05:04 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 15:05:08 [Norm]
- Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
- 15:05:08 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/05-minutes.html
- 15:05:12 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 15:05:17 [Norm]
- Topic: Next meeting: telcon, 26 January 2012.
- 15:05:33 [Norm]
- Jim gives regrets.
- 15:05:51 [Norm]
- Topic: Processor profiles document
- 15:06:08 [Norm]
- Norm: My apologies for not getting it published.
- 15:06:16 [Norm]
- Norm: Paul gave some comments, I think they're all addressed.
- 15:06:23 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xml-proc-profiles.html
- 15:06:38 [Norm]
- Norm: I've now dated it 24 January, with a comment period that ends 29 February.
- 15:07:06 [Norm]
- Norm: V.next?
- 15:07:14 [Norm]
- Topic: V.next?
- 15:07:23 [Zakim]
- -Norm
- 15:07:30 [Norm]
- Uh...
- 15:07:43 [jfuller]
- did we lose people ?
- 15:07:48 [PGrosso]
- just norm
- 15:07:53 [Norm]
- zakim, passcoce?
- 15:07:53 [Zakim]
- I don't understand your question, Norm.
- 15:07:55 [Norm]
- zakim, passcode?
- 15:07:55 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Norm
- 15:08:04 [Zakim]
- +Norm
- 15:08:30 [Norm]
- Norm: We're not getting a lot of discussion/progress.
- 15:09:08 [Norm]
- Norm asks for help.
- 15:09:46 [Norm]
- Jim: I've just gone through a cycle of intense XProc use. I'd like to give some observations.
- 15:09:56 [Norm]
- ...I think what's good is that we've got something that's relatively consistent in V1.
- 15:10:19 [Norm]
- ...Ports work, there's a set of standard steps, the XProc pipelines are highly reusable.
- 15:10:39 [Norm]
- ...What's bad: XProc feels like middleware more than a standalone processor.
- 15:10:55 [Norm]
- ...Sometimes I run away to xslt or xquery to get back to familiar terrain.
- 15:11:17 [Norm]
- ...One of the biggest problems is the abstraction of working with sets of documents seems baked in at the wrong level.
- 15:11:41 [Norm]
- ...Working with sets of documents seems difficult which is surprising. It almost seems like we need p:document*s*.
- 15:11:57 [Norm]
- ...We've enumerated most of the speed bumps: values in variables, having to add p:empty to p:parameters.
- 15:12:09 [Norm]
- ...I think the biggest thing is verbosity. We all know that options/variables/parameters are related.
- 15:12:19 [Norm]
- ...The same sort of thing with iteration-source/viewport-source/xpath-context.
- 15:12:42 [Norm]
- ...I don't know if we considered this: but it strikes me that we could have had one construct for p:for-each and p:viewport.
- 15:13:09 [Norm]
- ...There are simple scenarios that are hard to do. For example, dealing with ZIP files is a lot of work.
- 15:13:33 [Norm]
- ...I think we've missed a beat with respect to cross-platform issues. It's surprisingly easy to write a platform-specific pipeline.
- 15:13:51 [Norm]
- ...When I step back, I'd like to talk about what V.next is. Are we fixing things, so that it's more amenable to being adopted?
- 15:13:55 [Norm]
- ...Are we trying to expand its scope?
- 15:14:15 [Norm]
- ...I think fundamentally, XProc being a data flow language, we're not leveraging everything we could in a data flow language.
- 15:14:43 [Norm]
- ...Ultimately, the idea of how long the effort for V.next is interesting.
- 15:14:49 [Norm]
- ...We can do things to make the language more adoptable.
- 15:14:59 [Norm]
- ...That concludes that our V.next should be relatively short.
- 15:15:12 [Norm]
- Norm: How long is a really good question?
- 15:16:37 [Norm]
- ...Are we going to do something small an fast, or are we going to try to tackle bigger issues?
- 15:16:51 [Zakim]
- +Cornelia
- 15:17:15 [Norm]
- Present: Norm, Jim, Paul, Alex, Vojtech, Carine, Cornelia
- 15:17:31 [Norm]
- Alex: What about parameters, lots of folks say we messed that one up.
- 15:18:19 [cornelia]
- cornelia has joined #xproc
- 15:18:54 [Norm]
- Norm: Even if we all think parameters suck, until someone comes up with a better proposal, I'm not sure what we can do about it.
- 15:21:00 [Norm]
- Norm puts Cornelia on the spot about long or short time frame.
- 15:21:20 [Norm]
- Cornelia: My instinct is the former. I think if we don't get uptake in the shorter time frame, the longer term issues are going to be moot.
- 15:21:55 [Norm]
- Norm: Thanks.
- 15:22:19 [Norm]
- Norm: I think I'm starting to hear consensus that one of the design goals for V.next should be that we get it finished quickly.
- 15:23:15 [Norm]
- Alex: I wonder about the resource manager. If we're going to categorize small/big/large that resource manager is a big issue.
- 15:23:41 [Norm]
- Jim: I think the resource manager is interesting. But we have to do it right.
- 15:24:13 [Norm]
- Alex: I think we should focus on usability. Features like AVTs, additional steps, or additional options on existing steps.
- 15:24:28 [Norm]
- ..."Easier to use" and "more inventory of cool things" that would be a win.
- 15:24:38 [Norm]
- Jim: I think we can also double-down on steps published as notes.
- 15:25:00 [Norm]
- Alex: We might also consider as a WG how we're going to handle steps.
- 15:26:10 [Norm]
- Norm mumbles a bit about the issue of step management.
- 15:27:04 [Norm]
- Jim: How would we do that?
- 15:27:08 [Norm]
- Norm: I think we could group them together.
- 15:27:27 [Norm]
- Vojtech: Then the question is, how large do we want to grow the inventory of p: steps.
- 15:27:33 [Norm]
- Alex: Maybe we should categorize things.
- 15:27:48 [Norm]
- ...We could start by categorizing the existing steps.
- 15:28:19 [Norm]
- Norm: Vojtech, are you consered about having a large vocabulary of p: steps?
- 15:28:50 [Norm]
- Vojtech: I think it was Michael Kay that was surprised that we had so many steps. We have things like p:rename and such (that could be implemented in XSLT or XQuery).
- 15:29:19 [Norm]
- ...Having more steps is a greater opportunity to get things wrong.
- 15:29:30 [Norm]
- ...It's more about having things done right than about adding things quickly.
- 15:29:51 [Norm]
- Alex: It's like the XPath functions, they're in a separate spec.
- 15:30:03 [Norm]
- Vojtech: Yes, we could have a separate document that enumerates all the steps.
- 15:30:16 [Norm]
- Alex: Right.
- 15:30:46 [Norm]
- ...The only thing is there that we'd have to some definition of the core steps. You'd want to have a minimum number of steps that every processor had to implement.
- 15:30:54 [Norm]
- Jim: I think that's the significant issue.
- 15:31:24 [Norm]
- Alex: If they're in categories, then you can organize them that way.
- 15:32:05 [Norm]
- Cornelia: I think that's a great idea too. Consider Atom: there's the core format, then the publishing spec, then there are lots of RFCs for all kinds of extensions.
- 15:33:09 [jfuller]
- I think Notes have to apply to optional steps
- 15:33:20 [Norm]
- Norm: I'm confused, I thought having separate specs for zip/unzip, file utilities, os utilities, etc. was exactly that model
- 15:33:35 [Norm]
- Alex: Well, Notes don't have the same standing as Recommendations.
- 15:34:06 [Norm]
- ...Atom is both an example and a counter-example. In order to use Atom, you have to go digging through all the possible extensions.
- 15:34:48 [Norm]
- ...I don't think we want to have everything in Notes, nor do we want to have to manage lots of Recommendations.
- 15:34:59 [Norm]
- Alex: Having a principle here would be good.
- 15:35:57 [Norm]
- Norm: Yeah, we could have Recommendations for required steps and Notes for optional ones.
- 15:35:59 [Norm]
- ...For example.
- 15:36:13 [Norm]
- Alex: That's what the HTML5 folks have been doing, breaking out functionality into separate specs.
- 15:37:06 [Norm]
- Vojtech: With XProc you could take it to the extreme and say that the language doesn't define any atomic steps at all. That'd be the complete language.
- 15:37:12 [Norm]
- ...On top of that you could build standard libraries of steps.
- 15:37:26 [Norm]
- ...You could have required and optional profiles.
- 15:38:31 [Norm]
- Norm: I think I hear consensus growing for separating the spec into at least two parts.
- 15:38:55 [Norm]
- Alex; Maybe we could try to take up some subgroups.
- 15:39:28 [Norm]
- Norm: Alex, would you take a stab at categorizing the existing steps.
- 15:39:32 [Norm]
- Alex: Sure.
- 15:40:25 [Norm]
- ACTION: Alex to attempt to categorize the steps into a small number of groups.
- 15:40:39 [Norm]
- Alex: My time between now and next week is pretty tight.
- 15:41:26 [Norm]
- Norm: I wonder, Jim, if you'd look at a Note for zip/unzip, those seem very popular on xproc-de.
- 15:41:29 [Norm]
- s/de./dev/
- 15:41:34 [Norm]
- Jim: Sure.
- 15:41:42 [Norm]
- ACTION: Jim to start drafting a note for p:zip/p:unzip
- 15:41:59 [Norm]
- Norm: So I think I heard consensus on two points.
- 15:42:24 [Norm]
- ...1. Our focus for V.next will be on small items that we can accomplish quickly.
- 15:42:59 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 15:43:18 [Norm]
- ACTION: Norm to attempt to enumerate the items currently on the wikis that are "low hanging fruit" for V.enxt
- 15:43:43 [Norm]
- Norm: 2. We want to consider dividing the spec into at least two pieces: a core language spec and a step library sepc.
- 15:43:47 [Norm]
- s/sepc/spec/
- 15:44:15 [Norm]
- Jim: I don't disagree, but I'm wondering about the timing.
- 15:44:42 [Norm]
- ...Using energy and effort for that might mean other things don't get done. So maybe that's not the best thing.
- 15:45:09 [ht]
- ht has joined #xproc
- 15:45:14 [Norm]
- Norm: Ok, we'll record the fact that people thought it was, in principle, a good idea, not that we're determined to do it.
- 15:45:52 [PGrosso]
- ht, I'd think so.
- 15:46:17 [alexmilowski]
- Henry, yes please. You should weigh in on what we are discussing.
- 15:46:23 [Zakim]
- +??P8
- 15:48:20 [Norm]
- Norm asks Henry about the plan to go quickly.
- 15:48:56 [Norm]
- Henry: I'm reminded of Ashok's advice. If we don't really go quickly. If it takes us 9mo to a year to do a modest V.next, then we'll never get anyone to pay any attention again.
- 15:49:12 [Norm]
- ...I don't know how strongly I feel about that, or about whether it applies to us.
- 15:50:28 [Norm]
- Jim: Is 9 months really what it takes?
- 15:51:07 [Norm]
- Some discussion of timing.
- 15:53:34 [Norm]
- Alex: If we're really into doing this quickly, then we need a laundry list of usability items that we want to accomplish and the other is the step inventory.
- 15:55:24 [Norm]
- Topic: Any other business?
- 15:56:08 [Norm]
- Paul: Liam reported at the CG call that the new charter is going through the process.
- 15:56:14 [Norm]
- ...It should happen by March.
- 15:56:50 [Norm]
- Vojtech: There's a grand vision that Liam has about XProc/XSLT/XQuery coordinating.
- 15:56:57 [Norm]
- ...that may also influence what we are doing.
- 15:57:34 [Norm]
- Adjourned.
- 15:57:39 [Zakim]
- -Norm
- 15:57:40 [Zakim]
- -jfuller
- 15:57:41 [Zakim]
- -Vojtech
- 15:57:42 [Zakim]
- -Alex_Milows
- 15:57:42 [Zakim]
- -Cornelia
- 15:57:42 [Zakim]
- -PGrosso
- 15:57:43 [Norm]
- rrsagent, set logs world-visible
- 15:57:43 [Zakim]
- -Carine
- 15:57:46 [Norm]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 15:57:46 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/01/19-xproc-minutes.html Norm
- 15:58:08 [Zakim]
- -ht
- 15:58:12 [Zakim]
- XML_PMWG()10:00AM has ended
- 15:58:14 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Norm, jfuller, PGrosso, Alex_Milows, Carine, Vojtech, Cornelia, ht
- 16:00:19 [cornelia]
- cornelia has left #xproc
- 16:06:35 [PGrosso]
- PGrosso has left #xproc
- 16:55:52 [ht]
- ht has joined #xproc
- 17:14:43 [Norm]
- Norm has joined #xproc
- 17:48:00 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #xproc
- 17:54:15 [Liam]
- norm, congrats on pubreq
- 17:54:28 [Norm]
- thx
- 17:54:45 [Norm]
- let me know when service.w3.org comes back online and I'll check the pubrules again :-P
- 17:55:06 [Liam]
- "grand vision" - I've no plans (or intent) to force anything on anyone, just want to put people together & see if anything happens :-)
- 17:55:19 [Norm]
- works for me
- 17:55:45 [Liam]
- (and afaik ,pubrules is working)
- 18:02:36 [Norm]
- ah, yes, back
- 18:06:34 [Norm]
- Liam: fyi: pubrules is giving intermittent (but frequent) 502's
- 18:06:34 [ht]
- ht has joined #xproc
- 18:08:55 [Norm]
- But I think it really is clean now. there was one broken link
- 18:09:33 [Liam]
- I have forwarded note about 502s to the sysreq team channel
- 19:49:56 [alexmilowski_]
- alexmilowski_ has joined #xproc