IRC log of xproc on 2008-01-03
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:47:08 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #xproc
- 15:47:08 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/03-xproc-irc
- 15:47:10 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #xproc
- 15:47:12 [Norm]
- Zakim, this will be xproc
- 15:47:12 [Zakim]
- ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
- 15:47:39 [ruilopes]
- ruilopes has joined #xproc
- 15:53:28 [Norm]
- Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
- 15:53:28 [Norm]
- Date: 3 January 2008
- 15:53:28 [Norm]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/03-agenda
- 15:53:28 [Norm]
- Meeting: 96
- 15:53:28 [Norm]
- Chair: Norm
- 15:53:29 [Norm]
- Scribe: Norm
- 15:53:31 [Norm]
- ScribeNick: Norm
- 15:57:15 [Zakim]
- XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
- 15:57:22 [Zakim]
- +Norm
- 15:58:40 [alexmilowski]
- alexmilowski has joined #xproc
- 16:00:50 [ht]
- ht has joined #xproc
- 16:01:12 [ht]
- zakim, please call ht-781
- 16:01:12 [Zakim]
- ok, ht; the call is being made
- 16:01:14 [Zakim]
- +Ht
- 16:01:25 [richard]
- richard has joined #xproc
- 16:01:50 [MSM]
- zakim, please call me at Office
- 16:01:50 [Zakim]
- ok, MSM; the call is being made
- 16:01:51 [Zakim]
- +MSM
- 16:01:57 [Zakim]
- + +1.415.404.aaaa
- 16:01:59 [Zakim]
- +??P8
- 16:01:59 [richard]
- zakim, ? is me
- 16:01:59 [Zakim]
- +richard; got it
- 16:02:28 [Norm]
- Zakim, who's on the phone?
- 16:02:28 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Norm, Ht, MSM, richard, +1.415.404.aaaa
- 16:02:33 [Norm]
- Zakim, aaaa is alexmilowski
- 16:02:33 [Zakim]
- +alexmilowski; got it
- 16:03:14 [Norm]
- Regrets: Alessandro, Paul
- 16:03:22 [Norm]
- Present: Norm, Michael, Henry, Richard, Alex
- 16:03:25 [MoZ]
- MoZ has joined #xproc
- 16:03:49 [MoZ]
- Zakim, what is the code ?
- 16:03:49 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
- 16:04:13 [Norm]
- Regrets: Alessandro, Paul, Murray
- 16:04:31 [Zakim]
- +MoZ
- 16:05:06 [Norm]
- Present: Norm, Michael, Henry, Richard, Alex, Mohamed
- 16:05:08 [Zakim]
- +??P14
- 16:05:12 [Norm]
- Present: Norm, Michael, Henry, Richard, Alex, Mohamed, Rui
- 16:05:22 [Norm]
- Topic: Accept this agenda?
- 16:05:22 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/03-agenda
- 16:05:24 [ruilopes]
- Zakim, ? is me
- 16:05:24 [Zakim]
- +ruilopes; got it
- 16:05:41 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 16:05:42 [Zakim]
- +??P16
- 16:05:49 [Norm]
- Present: Norm, Michael, Henry, Richard, Alex, Mohamed, Rui, Andrew
- 16:05:58 [Norm]
- Zakim, ??P16 is Andrew
- 16:05:58 [Zakim]
- +Andrew; got it
- 16:06:05 [Norm]
- Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
- 16:06:05 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/12/20-minutes
- 16:06:10 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 16:06:17 [Norm]
- Topic: Next meeting: telcon 10 January 2008?
- 16:06:31 [Norm]
- No regrets given.
- 16:07:15 [Norm]
- Topic: Last call comments
- 16:07:15 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments.html
- 16:07:23 [AndrewF]
- AndrewF has joined #xproc
- 16:08:03 [Norm]
- Topic: 81. A proposal to restructure our top-level syntax
- 16:09:00 [Norm]
- Norm wonders if Alex has any thoughts.
- 16:09:03 [Norm]
- Alex: I generally like it.
- 16:09:37 [Norm]
- Alex wonders if there are any controversial parts in the minds of others
- 16:09:39 [Norm]
- Silence
- 16:10:00 [Norm]
- Norm: Is there anyone on the call that thinks we shouldn't do this?
- 16:10:30 [Norm]
- Michael: The fundamental idea seems good. Some of the special cases for defaulting are problematic.
- 16:11:44 [Norm]
- Alex: When you have a p:pipeline, any inputs and outputs are additive, is that right?
- 16:12:02 [Norm]
- Richard: Yes, as I framed it, p:pipeline is just syntactic sugar for a declaration with a p:input and a p:output.
- 16:12:33 [Norm]
- ...The advantage it gives is that there's a fully explicit syntax for things.
- 16:12:46 [Norm]
- ...If you want an abbreviated syntax, then p:pipeline is it, and the abbreviation seems to me to be very straightforwarde.
- 16:12:50 [Norm]
- s/forwarde/forward/
- 16:12:59 [Norm]
- Alex: Can you point to a p:pipeline to import it.
- 16:13:10 [Norm]
- Richard: I don't see why not.
- 16:13:30 [Norm]
- In fact, you can point to all three, a p:pipeline, a p:declare-step, or a p:library.
- 16:14:26 [Norm]
- Some discussion of the fact that this means you can point to a declare-step implemented by other means as well.
- 16:14:45 [Norm]
- Let's consider the options in Richard's proposal:
- 16:14:56 [Norm]
- 1. How to refer to pipeline input ports within a subpipeline.
- 16:16:03 [Norm]
- Norm: I have a preference for using the local name of the type.
- 16:17:09 [MoZ]
- ##local
- 16:17:12 [Norm]
- Richard: That has an impact on option 3, since it will make some inputs totally unavaiable.
- 16:17:27 [Norm]
- Alex: Why not make the type required.
- 16:17:40 [Norm]
- Henry: You could do that, you could take 1 and 3 as a package solution.
- 16:18:16 [Norm]
- Henry expresses a preference for requiring the name if we don't go with the absent step attribute shortcut.
- 16:18:23 [Norm]
- s/the name/the type/
- 16:19:05 [Norm]
- Henry: The advantage of requiring all pipelines to be typed is that it means you can always import them.
- 16:19:29 [Norm]
- Richard: And conversely, having untyped pipelines allows authors to prevent them from being reused.
- 16:19:47 [richard]
- s/reused/reused without copying/
- 16:21:01 [Norm]
- Mohamed: I prefer to use the local name as well. Omitting the name is just too complicated to understand.
- 16:21:16 [Norm]
- So, for option 1, we'll use the local name of the step type.
- 16:21:44 [Norm]
- 2. Should the defaulted input and output on p:pipeline have referenceable names.
- 16:22:15 [Norm]
- Richard: I think that if they don't have referencable names, how can you call the pipeline? That's compelling to me.
- 16:23:04 [Norm]
- Norm: I feel a little odd because we've made the other choice elsewhere.
- 16:23:13 [Norm]
- Richard: yes, but no where else is it exposed externally.
- 16:23:15 [Norm]
- s/yes/Yes/
- 16:23:49 [Norm]
- Anyone disagree?
- 16:25:17 [Norm]
- Mohamed points out that you could still call them, as long as the call used the primary input port.
- 16:25:38 [Norm]
- Richard: I think the the point of the simplification is that it simplifies things for the author, it shouldn't constrain the user.
- 16:25:41 [Norm]
- s/the the/the/
- 16:26:30 [Norm]
- Ok, for 2, we'll use the names "source" and "result"
- 16:27:49 [Norm]
- 3. The type attribute is optional on p:pipeline.
- 16:29:17 [Norm]
- Norm: I think at the moment I favor making it optional, the point of the default syntax is to make things simple and requiring a type you never use doesn't seem simple.
- 16:29:27 [Norm]
- Henry: I think we should try that and see if we get pushback.
- 16:29:50 [Norm]
- So, for 3, we leave it optional.
- 16:31:41 [Norm]
- Norm summarizes the consequences of the choices.
- 16:32:27 [Norm]
- Richard: I left the 'primary' off of my equivalence summary in email.
- 16:36:52 [Norm]
- Mohamed: I'm wondering about the mandatory nature of input and output in the p:pipeline case.
- 16:37:22 [Norm]
- Norm: I think pipelines that have no input or no output are going to be much less common.
- 16:37:28 [richard]
- It's not "do something extra if you want to reuse", it's "don't use this abbrevation if you want to reuse"
- 16:41:05 [Norm]
- ACTION: Norm to craft an editor's draft implementing these decisions
- 16:41:18 [Norm]
- Topic: 90. Questions and comments
- 16:41:22 [Norm]
- s/90/89/
- 16:41:38 [Norm]
- Norm: On closer inspection, I decided that these were editorial or clarifications.
- 16:42:45 [Norm]
- Topic: Future plans
- 16:43:08 [Norm]
- Norm: Seems like we're done.
- 16:43:11 [Norm]
- Henry: Time for a last call.
- 16:43:25 [Norm]
- Richard: Do we want to introduce this renaming in a last call.
- 16:44:06 [Norm]
- Norm muses about that.
- 16:44:41 [Norm]
- Norm: I guess it's time to get an editor's draft out that includes all of the decisions we've made.
- 16:45:07 [Norm]
- Norm: Anyone know of anything else that's outstanding?
- 16:45:21 [Norm]
- Mohamed: At some point we talked about splitting the spec.
- 16:45:29 [Norm]
- Richard: Having the step library separate, you mean?
- 16:45:32 [Norm]
- Mohamed: yes.
- 16:46:07 [Norm]
- Norm: I'll put that on the agenda for next week.
- 16:46:14 [Norm]
- Topic: Any other business?
- 16:46:21 [Norm]
- None.
- 16:46:32 [Norm]
- Adjourned.
- 16:46:35 [Zakim]
- -richard
- 16:46:36 [Zakim]
- -ruilopes
- 16:46:36 [Zakim]
- -Andrew
- 16:46:37 [Zakim]
- -Ht
- 16:46:38 [Zakim]
- -MoZ
- 16:46:44 [Zakim]
- -MSM
- 16:51:35 [Zakim]
- -Norm
- 16:51:37 [Zakim]
- -alexmilowski
- 16:51:38 [Zakim]
- XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
- 16:51:39 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Norm, Ht, MSM, +1.415.404.aaaa, richard, alexmilowski, MoZ, ruilopes, Andrew
- 16:58:46 [Norm]
- RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
- 16:58:49 [Norm]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:58:49 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/03-xproc-minutes.html Norm
- 17:13:26 [Norm]
- Norm has joined #xproc
- 18:43:39 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #xproc