W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 12 June 2002

Derived from IRC Log

1. Roll

Present, 23/19 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda review and AOB

[scribe_mh] AOB 
[scribe_mh] 1. DF: LC announce draft sent out - comment to the list please 
[scribe_mh] 2. DF: GETF resolution, TAG has requested resolution email to be sent to their public list - need volunteer to produce resolution email 
[scribe_mh] DF: woudl prefer to get this done this week, but early next week is probably OK 
[scribe_mh] NM: volunteered 
[scribe_mh] JI: volunteered 
[scribe_mh] PC: volunteered 
[scribe_mh] DF: version posted to WG prior to TAG, no comments within a day, send to TAG 
[ActionLog] ACTION: Noah, John Ibbotson, Paul Cotton...draft resolution text for RPC to TAG mailing list. Mail to protocols WG for 1 day review

3. Approval of June 5 minutes

[scribe_mh] Accepted without change

4. Action items

[ActionLog] Editors 
[ActionLog] Redirect non editorial issues to last call issues list 
[ActionLog] NOT DONE 
[ActionLog] MarkB 
[ActionLog] Prompt WG to do thorough review of media type draft by mid-june so that it can be submitted before July 1st. 
[ActionLog] PENDING 
[ActionLog] Editors 
[ActionLog] Fix 5.5.1 to say MAY ONLY or something like that, to better reflect the spirit of issue 194 resolution that can be tested as an assertion 
[ActionLog] DONE 
[ActionLog] Lynne & Anish 
[ActionLog] Publish new test collections doc over this w/e 
[ActionLog] DONE 
[ActionLog] DavidF 
[ActionLog] send the issue closing text to xmlp-comment (issue #36) 
[ActionLog] DONE 
[ActionLog] DavidF 
[ActionLog] Chat with Mark B to figure out what to say about ID in LC announce 
[ActionLog] Email sent, awaiting reply. Mark DONE. 
[scribe_mh] PC: requests big attachments to go to www-archive and then send pointer - more friendly to the bandwidth challenged

5. Last Call

[scribe_mh] DF: decided last week on document suite, now need to see what needs to be done to each to get to LC

[scribe_mh] SOAP 1.2 Pt 1: 
[scribe_mh] HFN: new status, upodate namespace, remove chnage log, remove diffs colouring 
[scribe_mh] HFN: all apply to Pt2 as well 
[ActionLog] Actually, I think he said there's probably no coloring in pt1 
[scribe_mh] DF: also update member list 
[scribe_mh] DF: some people have contributed a great deal recently, names that spring to mind include Chris, Stuart, Noah 
[scribe_mh] MH: where do we draw the line 
[scribe_mh] DF: editor would also be expected to do the less glamorous stuff 
[scribe_mh] MH: alternate, add new section of significant contributors 
[scribe_mh] NM: is willing to undertake editorial tasks 
[scribe_mh] DF: take offline, general consensus that we should recognise significant contributors 
[scribe_mh] HFN: does this apply to other docs ? 
[ActionLog] ACTION: DF to take consideration of expansion of editor list to email for resolution 
[scribe_mh] bad echo halts play temorarilly 
[scribe_mh] DF: how long will the 5 chnages take 
[scribe_mh] editors: 2 days 
[scribe_mh] SOAP 1.2 Pt2 
[scribe_mh] DF all of the 5 for pt1 
[scribe_mh] DF: 185 ednote 
[ActionLog] ACTION=3: Editors (by Friday) take care of the "five items" (color marking of changes out, change log out, etc.) in parts 1 and 2 
[scribe_mh] DF: 185 resolution ednote may need editing - tests WG understanding of ednote 
[scribe_mh] HFN: understanding is: leave as is or take out 
[scribe_mh] DF: should clarify ednote: add "based on this feedback the WG may decide to remove generics ina future version" 
[Henrik] Proposal regarding 185: either to keep 'generics' asis or to drop it altogther. No tweaks 
[scribe_mh] DF: +"of this specification" 
[scribe_mh] Agreed 
[scribe_mh] DF: HTTP 202, 204 
[ActionLog] ACTION: update ednote on generics. 
[scribe_mh] NM: proposed text is friendly amendment to text from CF 
[scribe_mh] HFN: can live with, both need to be updated to reflect GETF resolution 
[DavidF] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002May/0102.html 
[DavidF] is NM's amendment 
[scribe_mh] MH: last paragraph needs editing in respect of GETF 
[DavidF] CF's original http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002May/0095.html 
[scribe_mh] NM: propose we adopt [12] with small tune up to reflect GETF changes 
[scribe_mh] HFN: 2nd para talks specifically about RR MEP, should add the response MEP 
[scribe_mh] NM: agrees 
[scribe_mh] DF: we need to see the modified version of the text 
[ActionLog] Specific changes are to add reference to new response MEP, and also last paragraph and take out mention of GET 
[scribe_mh] DF: NM wil send email, editors will add to doc on the assumption that it is OK 
[ActionLog] ACTION: Noah, by end of day Thurs, draft text changes to update http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002May/0102.html 
[scribe_mh] HFN: aside 202 and 204 removed from table ? 
[scribe_mh] MH: agrees 
[scribe_mh] NM: agrees 
[scribe_mh] DF: table 17 is where the chnage need sot be made to remove 202 and 204 
[ActionLog] ACTION: editors, remove from table 17, part 2, indication that we support http codes 202 and 204 
[scribe_mh] HFN: proposes to delete appendix C 
[ActionLog] ACTION: Editors, delete part 2 appendix C and all references to it 
[scribe_mh] no dissent 

{Primer discussion}
[scribe_mh] Nilo: will send - most comments included 
[ActionLog] ACTION: (repeated for log) Nilo. update primer for namespace, change log, colors, members list (needs member list from David) 
[scribe_mh] DF: does group want more time to review chnages to primer re GETF 
[ActionLog] ACTION: (repeated for log) DF resolve status section, especially with respect to PR intentions, etc. 
[scribe_mh] no response 
[ActionLog] Yves: was the earlier pre-crash log lost, or do we have both? 
[scribe_mh] DF: if you have any comments on primer, send in by end of week 
[Yves] the log should be on the web already, and current msg will be appended 
[ActionLog] ACTION: DF send email to working group on comment on primer 

[scribe_mh] Assertions and test collection 
[scribe_mh] anish: doc include feedback from henrik and don mullen 
[scribe_mh] anish: also major cleanup of all tests 
[scribe_mh] anish: added list of header blocks, body blocks used by test collection 
[scribe_mh] anish: GETF changes not included 
[scribe_mh] anish: request to be CCed on email with new namespace 
[scribe_mh] anish: to do: namespace change, GETF, status 
[scribe_mh] DF: where is doc wrt getf 
[ActionLog] ACTION: Henrik send stylesheet to Anish 
[scribe_mh] anish: not done 
[scribe_mh] df: what plans for including GETF 
[scribe_mh] anish: can start on Fri 
[scribe_mh] DF: how long will it take 
[scribe_mh] anish: 1.5 days 
[scribe_mh] DF: would more people help ? 
[scribe_mh] anish: yes 
[scribe_mh] JI: volunteers to work out changes to assertions due to GETF 
[scribe_mh] DF: what else can we do to expedite 
[scribe_mh] anish: most time consuming is looking at chnages and working out test modifications 
[scribe_mh] DF: volunteers to help with that 
[scribe_mh] silence 
[scribe_mh] s/volunteers/asks for volunteers/ 
[scribe_mh] PC: what kind of tests are we thinking of adding for GETF 
[scribe_mh] DF: don't know, but we need to do due dilligence 
[scribe_mh] PC: would a test be " a client makes a request and gets a SOAP envelope" ? 
[scribe_mh] anish: need to look at assertions and think about it 
[scribe_mh] NM: no difference to existing tests, could assert that the should be a resource that responds appropriately to a GET and add tests around that 
[scribe_mh] anish: could we do something around an RPC that takes no args 
[scribe_mh] NM: slippery slope 
[scribe_mh] DF: any other issues re test collection ? 
[ActionLog] ACTION: Anish, by Monday, update test collection to reflect RPC/GET, etc. 
[scribe_mh] DF: look for updated do on Monday, does WG want time to look it over ? 
[scribe_mh] DF: version we see on monday will be the LC 

[scribe_mh] Requirements Document 
[scribe_mh] DF: recalls previous discussion, doesn't think there is anything to do on it. need someone to take on task of making a LC version 
[scribe_mh] no volunteers 
[scribe_mh] DF; volunteers to do it 
[ActionLog] ACTION: DF work with Bob Lojeck to bring Requirements doc into last call condition (presumably mostly boilerplate) 

[scribe_mh] Usage Scenarios 
[scribe_mh] JI: nothing substantial to be done, just status type boilerplate 
[scribe_mh] DF: ready by end of week ? 
[scribe_mh] JI: provided boilerplate is ready - yes 

[scribe_mh] Email binding 
[scribe_mh] HM: no substantial changes required, should be ready by end of week 
[scribe_mh] DF: different status - work with Yves and Carine 

[scribe_mh] Media Type draft 
[scribe_mh] DF: not part of our W3C output as such 
[scribe_mh] DF: unclear what else needs to be done 
[scribe_mh] HFN: put up on our server and add ref from home page, also some edits outstanding 
[scribe_mh] HFN: need to decide when to issue a new draft 
[scribe_mh] DF: will email MB again 
[scribe_mh] Document list completed 
[ActionLog] ACTION: DF to email Mark Baker (if anyone knows how to phone him, please contact David) 

[scribe_mh] DF: is WG ready to request LC once all changes above have been made 
[scribe_mh] silence 
[ActionLog] YYY..YES...SSS!!! 
[scribe_mh] DF: take silence as assent, we will then go ahead with LC once changes are made 
[ActionLog] DF: without dissent, we agree to go to last call once the changes discussed today have been made. 

[scribe_mh] Discussion of checking WDs against guidelines 
[scribe_mh] Yves will send out pointers 
[scribe_mh] NM: are W3C staff aware of our near LC status 
[Henrik] ACTION: Yves: Send out pointers to WD guidelines and document validators 
[scribe_mh] DF: has sent email to W3C - no responses yet 
[scribe_mh] PC: need to get permission to make patent disclosures public 
[Henrik] Can we agree on the namespace URI prefix now? The last WD used "http://www.w3.org/2001/12"? 
[ActionLog] ACTION: DF get agreement from members to make their "disclosures" public 
[scribe_mh] 2002/6 ? 
[Henrik] I guess it should be "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/..." 
[Yves] sounds good to me 
[Yves] who will update the schemas? 
[PaulC] And someone has to supply the text at the end of the Namespaces? 
[PaulC] Since they have to be resolvable (according to the W3C). 
[Yves] I'll update the one used for the current namespace 
[ActionLog] ACTION: Editors (arguably a dup of action above) update various schemas to refer to the right namespaces 
[DavidF] ACTION = 11 to W3C staff, to appropriately name files so that namespace URI's do resolve to a resource 
[Yves] henrik: http://www.w3.org/2001/07/pubrules-form 
[Yves] henrik: http://www.w3.org/Guide/Pubrules 
[scribe_mh] PC: discuss feedback on LC call ? 
[scribe_mh] DF; no, will do it via email 
[Henrik] yves, thanks - please send to WG list as many of the other editors are not on IRC today 
[Yves] yep, it's just to have them on the log, easier to track down again :) 

[scribe_mh] adjourned

Summary of Action items.

[RRSAgent] ACTION: (repeated for log) Nilo. update primer for namespace, change log, colors, members list (needs member list from David) [1] 
[RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-02-09 
[RRSAgent] ACTION: (repeated for log) DF resolve status section, especially with respect to PR intentions, etc. [2] 
[RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-02-31 
[RRSAgent] ACTION: DF send email to working group on comment on primer [3] 
[RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-03-47 
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Henrik send stylesheet to Anish [4] 
[RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-08-07 
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Anish, by Monday, update test collection to reflect RPC/GET, etc. [5] 
[RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-21-08 
[RRSAgent] ACTION: DF work with Bob Lojeck to bring Requirements doc into last call condition (presumably mostly boilerplate) [6] 
[RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-24-13 
[RRSAgent] ACTION: DF to email Mark Baker (if anyone knows how to phone him, please contact David) [7] 
[RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-30-32-1 
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Yves: Send out pointers to WD guidelines and document validators [8] 
[RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-35-04 
[RRSAgent] ACTION: DF get agreement from members to make their "disclosures" public [9] 
[RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-36-48 
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Editors (arguably a dup of action above) update various schemas to refer to the right namespaces [10] 
[RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-39-42 
[RRSAgent] ACTION: to W3C staff, to appropriately name files such as schemas so that URI's do resolve to a resource [11] 
[RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-40-21