The W3C XML Protocol WG held a teleconference on 18 October 2000. The
meeting began at 8:00a PDT.


1. Roll call, assign scribe (10 minutes)

David Fallside called roll.

2. Agenda review (5 minutes)

Nothing added

3. Approval of minutes from f2f, see [1] (5 minutes)

David F mentioned that minor changes, adding URLs, adding scribes,date, and
location have already been mentioned and would be made.

David Orchard said he had some small editorial changes, these will
be discussed in the list by email before being committed.

4. How to handle public list? (10 minutes) (actually took 20+ minutes)

David F raised the issue by stating that the charter states that work
should be in public, however we've been conspiculously silent on the public
list. Some kind of communication is needed for the public list to let the
world know that we are working.

Discussion followed including suggestions that we put out a summary of the
f2f and our current state of working through raw req't data. Noah pointed
out the need to be polite when we deal with the public list, both in
describing what the working group has accomplished and when and how the
public can best participate in the discussion.

Paul Cotton and Dave Orchard suggested providing a moderator or facilitator
to channel the public discussion into conversations that will help the
member group. The feeling is that the current public list discussion is
unfocused and too general.

The public/private distinction is problematic.

ACTION: David F suggested not putting current requirements list out, but
soliciting a moderator for public list - who will send msg to the public
group regarding member group work and public group participation. Chair
needs to recruit this position from working group

5. XP Requirements (25 minutes) (spent more like 20 minutes on this)

-- status report from editors (henrik and alex):

Henrik has done preliminary organization. Alex is adding issues and will
put something out on the member list later today.

Henrik: we took all items and matched to sections of charter; only 2
handfuls fell outside of charter categories. Next step is to prune the
list. Alex (or was it Henrik?) talked about classifying the req'ts into the
following 4 groups.


Other potential groupings include protocol binding, rpc, env,

-- how we proceed
David F proposed the following process:

We need
(1) discussion on each req't
(2) final proposed version written
(3) disposition on each by the member group

Divide the requirements into the following groups:
data representation

Appoint a spokesperson for each group responsible for bringing forward the
req'ts and issues in each group for disposition.

Work in each subgroup will need to be carried out by email, possibly with
telcons (w3c support possible) a suggestion was made to use simple prefixes
for each subgroup that can be used in email subject lines (in addition to
req't number) to facilitate the email discussion.

Membership in a grouping is a self selecting process.

Henrick asked if this work includes use cases. The answer is that use cases
come after this initial work.

David F noted that 2nd internal draft scheduled for Oct 30th.And to have
all req'ts nailed down by next week is aggressive.

ACTION ITEM: some fraction of req'ts in each group must be ready for
discussion at next week's telcon.

Group leaders were solicited and will be indicated when the preliminary
req'ts document is posted to the memberlist.

-- collection of additional requirements

new req'ts need to be put onto the member list; each subgroup may decide
that new req'ts are duplicates.

new req'ts need to be on the list by the end of this week

7. Any other business (5 minutes)

Question from ??: What is the relation of the new XMSG submission [2] to
the WG's work? Chair answers: It will be input for this working group.

1. Chair notes Intel will host telcons for forseeable future, but passcode
for each telcon will be different. The WG member page will contain a list
of the upcoming telcons with passcodes; telephone number remains the same.

2. Chair notes that part of our reqt's discussion may suggest need for
other WGs under the XP Activity. ACTION: Chair will ascertain W3C thinking
on formation of such WGs, by next week.