W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 20 June 2001

1. Roll Call

Present 37/30 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda review. (David Fallside, "DF")

Only the May 23 and 30th minutes available for review prior to this
meeting, F2F minutes are pending outstanding edits, waiting on DF.
The bulk of the time for this conference call is to be spent on resolving
issues related to the publication of the documents.  There area a number of
issues concerning both the Abstract Model (AM) and the Soap 1.2
specification documents.  Also need to come up with a publication schedule.
Call for Other business
Gudge - What is the date of the Nov F2F, if one is planned. DF: a November
f2f is not currently scheduled.
Paul Cotton (PC) will place the proposal before the chair/WG on a November
f2f, will be forthcoming in ~10 days.
No additional Other Business items were raised.


4. Action item review.

AI 1 DF - Has this been subsumed by other events concerning the Documents?
DavidC - I have not compared them given the recent document mods. I can
take a pass over them as they currently stand, there is still much
discussion on several points. DF: there is mention of the reduction of
terms [within the docs] in agenda item 7.

AI 2 PC: has done the requisite research, is drafting a reply.
DF: Action item discharged to PC.  Can PC give us an update? PC In time for
the 7/11 con call.


AI4 P.C. That is done.
D.F. which issue [from the issues list] was it in reference to?
P.C. 20 or 25...will be checked and included in resolution of issue to
resolve with the issues list.

AI 5 Henrik - I sent the required mail, this has to be followed up on,
there are more questions.

AI 6 - Gudge - I rewrote section 4 [per Infoset standards] and will send it
presently (by tomorrow.)
P.C. since infoset is in last call, could we send them this as an example
in order to get their feedback, or do we want to look at use of it
ourselves first.
D.F. Does anyone object to sending the rewritten Sec 4 to the infoset WG?
Noah - I have no objection, but something has bothered me about Infoset.
Somewhere in the Infoset introduction, it says that infoset describes what
you get when you process a well-formatted XML document. However, I believe
an XML document is not necessary for an infoset to exist.  We could go from
Infoset to a serialized XML document, and then back.  We might want to
indicate that we are using it in this way.
Anon - I belive that you are talking about the "synthetic," not
D.F. - When was last call for Infoset?
P.C. - Last Friday, I believe.
D.F. can we discuss this over email, then, for next week's agenda?
Noah - yes, my concern happens to be with just the first sentence [of
D.F. so we will also want some discussion before Sec 4 goes to infoset.
Gudge - I should sent it [the rewrite] to our WG, though, right?
D.F. Yes
Noah - should my note go to the WG, or distapp?
DF - it is a CR WD, so it can go to public distapp.

AI 7 - Gudge - Done, we sent the required emails.


AI 9 - Hugo - this remains pending.
D.F. this was a longterm AI and completion is not expected for a while


5. Publicaton of the Documents

D.F. - we are looking to put out the two documents, our goal is to have
them in to the W3C next week.  I
added all comments I could find concerning publication to the agenda here.
I would like to go through and
dispose of these.  Finally, we will need to decide WHEN we are going to
publish. May we begin with a Status Update for both documents.

Stuart - there is a fresh copy on the site, including typo fixes and a
substantially revised document status.  It  was recieved via email,
comments from Hugo were incorporated, no other substantial comments seen.
DF - Have there been changes since the doc was sent out last Friday?
Stuart - changes to the boiler plate via Hugo only.
[Stuart reads the changed sentence aloud.]
DF - [directed to WG] Are there any other comments on the AM document?
Stuart - other than issues list comments, no others I am aware of.
DF - at the F2F, we said that the changes we have made would be sufficient.
Are there any more changes? Hearing none, lets move on to the spec doc.

Mark - Sent an email last thursday detailing what remains to be done,
status is the same.  Would you like to go through the items one by one?
DF - Yes, please do.
Mark -
1 - Sort the status section out, there was an email from Hugo today.
Hugo- yes, the status of that was updated to mention SOAP 1.2, and to give
some context about what is XMLP in relationship to SOAP. Did you see Paul's
email regarding SOAP 1.2 naming? What do people feel?
Henrik - he did comment. His comment was that we said the AM defined an XML
Protocol, but in fact we have not.  We can just say we have an AM, and we
are figuring out where we stand.  I am just saying to leave those 5 words
out of the sentence.
D.F. - is that ok?  [responses YES.]
Henrik - it might be useful to point to the change logs in schema.  I would
also like to applaud MarcH and the other editors for their work.
Hugo - that (reference unknown) would be an appendix?
Henrik - the link would be most important.
DF - Lets talk about the SOAP "VERSION" word being spelled out.  Does
anyone have a problem with it?
PC - I suggest that we spell out VERSION 1.2 in the doc title, and in the
first use.
Anon - Except where it is used in contrast to version 1.1. Is there a legal
PC - not in my reading, per my email.
Hugo - I have a question concerning Paul's email:  The Microsoft attorneys
recommend just SOAP (i.e. without expanding the acronym), yes?
PC - yes, they were saying to keep the same expanded name with 1.2, but
felt that it was reasonable to just
keep the SOAP unexpanded name.  Other examples indicated that just SOAP was
Hugo - I spoke with Janet Daly (W3C Communications Director), she had
concerns with just calling it SOAP.
DF - the WG agreed on just SOAP.
PC - I suggest Janet reads my email note regarding the repercussions of
using ANOTHER expanded name.
DF - it will be SOAP Version 1.2, are we agreed?
GROUP - Yes.
DF - Ok, the second item, sorting out appendix b (acknowledgements)?  I
suggest we leave it to the editors, OK?
DF - So in the interest of speed, we will make this an "Editor's call."
DF - Regarding point of discussion #3, section 2.5, MarcH please elaborate.
Mark - Section 2.5 contains a question about XXX, should we leave this
question in the publication, or move it to the issues list?
DF - Before making a decision, note that it is reasonable to ask for
feedback from the readers. So the question is, do we want to in this case?
Henrik - is it in the issues list already?
DF - I will make sure that at it is at minimum in the issues list.
Henrik - it is more consistent to just keep all questions in the issues
[There is general agreement.]
Stuart - Is it a Qname or a fully qualified name?
[DF asks Stuart to ask this question in email]
DF will ensure the question is in the issues list.
DF - Marc, we have dealt with items 1,2, and 3, are there other issues?
Mark - there are other issues, that we may or may not deal with prior to
publication. When we move items to the appendix, shall we leave them in the
current format?
DF - Leave as-is.

(5c) Boolean Default issue
DF - can I first see if I read this right, the question is do we want to
make this an xml-schema boolean?
Group - Yes, there is no reason not to, use the 'true' schema boolean.
Noah - I thought it was currently a restriction of boolean.
Gudge - The question is do you want me to remove the restriction?  If we
don't remove the restriction, it
is not a 'true' boolean.
Noah - note that this would be a change from SOAP 1.1. Maybe before people
decide, we should mention that the
canonical form is true/false.  [Seems to be the preferred form.]
DF - So the question is to keep it, change it to true/false, or allow all 4
(the 'true' schema form.)
Noah  - actually I have not heard anyone in the group recommend changing to
just true/false.
Mario - If we change to the schema boolean, we get all 4 options.  [ED
DF - So do we want to expand it?
Henrik - unless there is a good reason not to, we could expand it.  It
would be good to check if it would impact any implementations.
Noah - if we are already incompatible, than this is a minor incompatibility
to add.
DF - Does anyone have an issue with allowing true and false?
DF - Ok, then we will allow mustunderstand to take 1,0,true,false.  Do we
also have to mention default?
[It is 0 now.]
Gudge - default discussion may not be in this space?
Noah - I think that it is.
DF - anyone have any problems with leaving 0?
[No one voiced a concern]
DF - We will leave zero as the default.
ACTION APPOINTED - GUDGE to "make it so."

(5d) Header Modifications - [Phone system static during this part of
DF - Thanks to Noah for the proposed text to clarify wording to possible
actions.  I saw one or two comments.  Any others?
Herve - what about trailers being included?
Noah - I don't have an opinion, the trailer discussions are complex and
unclosed, I tried to cover agreed upon content.  Have we finished trailers
Jacek - I do not think that we have reached a conclusion on trailers, but
Noah's proposal will effect trailers, but the resolution should not change
Noah's text - trailer resolution will effect the trailer text only.
DF - Can we use Noah's text?
Noah - I should signal that between the time that it was written in Dinnard
and the most recent editor's copy, the Block term has been discussed; I
assume any differences should be handled by the editors.
Henrik - also some things in 6.2 area replicated in other areas concerning
Actors, etc.  We could move the whole thing to section 2, there is some
Noah - I tried to keep examples out of the text, but found it difficult to
word without examples in some places.  The editors should keep redundancy
and clarity in mind when incorporating the text.

Gudge - concerning the boolean issue, should I change things elsewhere to
reflect the expansion of boolean
values from 0,1 to 0,1,true, false?
[Group Yes]
DF - are we done with the issue of Noah's text?
[Group Yes]

DF -Any comments on the proposed text from Henrik?
Several - We have not really had time to read it yet.
DF - We need more time to read it.  Suggest we add the text into editor's
copy.  People can read it in context from the editor's copy, and provide
feedback at next week's telcon.

DF - These are only minor changes, such as 'anonymous actor,' any comments?

(5g) Any other comments on either document?

6.-7. DF - I would like to reorder the agenda, and temporarily pass on 6,
because I don't think that we are in a position to take a decisive action

7. Spec change proposal

Doug - the suggestion was to remove section 1.4 [Note that the wrong
section was referenced elsewhere, and Doug's proposal actually refers to
sec 1.4] completely and change some terminology back to the 1.1 spec
terminology.  I would personally rather cut 1.4 than make it an appendix.
I feel that it seems to suggest a certain type of implementation.
DF - any discussion?
Henrik - Some of the terms within ARE used, whether they should be
described within or should be in a glossary, I am fine either way.  I have
nothing against removing it, we just have to see if we lose terms by
Anon- Even the 1.1 spec used some terms that it might not have defined.
DF - making it an appendix makes it a bit less up front
Doug - I am concerned about the UNUSED terms
Noah - I agree, but in the case of  messagepath I am uncomfortable with
dropping the referenced to the terms
Doug - only UNUSED terms am I speaking of - message path was used in 1.1
Noah - it is such a small step to motivate the coming talk of
intermediaries, etc, we need an informal discussion on message patterns.
Doug - how about thing like message path stay, but completely non-used
terms go.
Noah - I agree if it has a role in the document, it must stay "somewhere."
Anon - Processor is defined using handler.
Noah - Node should likely replace processor as defined in Dinnard.  I think
that we were close to the level of abstraction that we need with Node, etc.
DF -  So do we drop 1.4, move it, what will be in the terminology section?
Doug - The section should only contain anything used in the spec
Noah - I don't think things like handler should be there just because they
are in the glossary.
DF - So the proposed action is to apply the filter to section 1.4. I need a
volunteer to apply that filter.
Doug - I will do that.
Noah - The diagram uses the term handler.  Perhaps the least disruptive way
to handle that is to add text to
the diagram saying that the diagram illustrates some context outside the
scope of the spec.
Doug - I thought that the diagram was going to go away?
Many - that was not my understanding of the origianl proposal.
Henrik - can I clarify?  I thought it was part of the action Doug was
given, that it included the diagram.
Noah - yes, the diagram does need some terminology work, actually.
DF - so the action item includes the text and the diagram.  When?
Doug - how about by end of business on Friday.
DF - that deadline is strongly encouraged.

DF - One other issue that might impact our publication of the doc is SOAP
action.  There is no time to fully solve it here, I propose that we need to
decide how to handle Soap Action in the working draft at this point.
Which way is the WG leaning? Should we aim for a more precise specification
of SOAPaction, or should we make an A/B type decision (reference to the A
and B proposals that the WG put out for public review)?
[About an equal response for both ideas.]
DF - Can we leave SoapAction as it is for now?
[Many people name themselves and say yes!]
Mark - it would be nice to have it done in time, but it is OK if we cannot.
I would like outside input.
DF  - Anyone opposed to leaving SOAPAction as is for the upcoming
[No oppositin was voiced]
DF -- Ok, that's what we'll do.

SCHEDULE outline
DF - Stuart, are there any edits outstanding on the AM document?
Stuart - NO
DF - the spec editors DO have outstanding edits. Minus Doug's edits, can
the spec editors complete them by friday?
Mark - if we have input on the status section, then yes.
Hugo - we can provide this.
DF - ok, let us do this by Friday. Doug will write his proposal as a
replacement of 1.4.  So, by EOB
Friday, we will have versions that we intend to submit, modulo Doug's text.
So by next telecon, we
can make a decision on Doug's text and the docs from Friday.
PC - what is the ETA for publication?
DF - our date, or the W3C publish date?
PC - the latter
Hugo - that depends upon the approval time.  Published rules say ~5 working
days.   I will try to corner the
right people. My estimate is around July 5th or 6th.

End of meeting