W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 29 October 2003

1. Roll call.

Present 16/12 Excused Regrets

2. Agenda review, and AOB

No other business.


3. Approval of October 22 telcon minutes, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/3/10/22-minutes.html

Minutes approved with no objection.


4. Review action items, see http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/Admin/#pending

2003/07/02: MarkN - Ask IETF to publish the SOAP Media-Type registration as a RFC (waiting for IETF confirmation)

2003/09/10: MarkN & DavidF - Confirm on the exact name of the content type (ietf vs vnd)

2003/09/24: Marc - Get a yes/no commitment from WSD WG on describing attachments

2003/10/08: WG - Monitor WSS Oasis TC response to our SOAP12-n11n comment. IF they do add a reference, we may need to move the document along the rec track.

2003/10/15: JohnI - Review RDF 2nd last call documents for 29th oct

2003/10/15: DavidF - Investigate possible collaboration with SVG WG on a generic MTOM, to report on Oct 29 telcon

2003/10/15: UC req editors - Add MarkN as a non-use-case, and add plurality to UC9 and 10

2003/10/22: Jacek - Send the response to Character Entity proposal to MSM and w3c-xml-plenary@w3.org

2003/10/22: MarkN - fork the MTOM spec per his Generic MTOM proposal by Nov 3

2003/10/22: UC req editors - Add Herve's use case version 1.1 as UC6 or UC (n+1)

2003/10/22: UC req editors - Remove ednote in 4.3

2003/10/22: UC req editors, W3C staff and DavidF - Submit the UC and Reqs doc for publication as a WD

2003/10/22: Gudge - Ask Schema WG about the status of base64 canonical form ( is it public? ) - can we reuse parts of the document?
Done. 1) Schema reckons they will have a publication in Nov/Dec to reference 2) The piece that we wish to reference (base64/canonical) is in the schema errata document, which is publically accessible now.

2003/10/22: Gudge - Send closing email wrt issues 441, 432 to xmlp-comments (and originator)

2003/10/22: Yves - Send closing email on issue 435 to xmlp-comment and originator

2003/10/22: PeteW - Send closing email on issue 436 by referencing text in 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 and decision on 431

2003/10/22: Marc - Kick-off email discussion of issue 440


5. Status reports and misc

-- December 2003, f2f planning 
Chair notes that there is now an online registration form for the December F2F, and asks all WG members to indicate whether or not they will attend.

-- JohnI review of RDF 2nd LC docs

John suggests sending a "no comment" response to the RDF WG, unless we find SOAP-specific issues or questions.
No objection to this course of action.

-- Registration of "application/soap+xml",
MarkN: IESG made a decision regarding our draft in September, but neglected to inform us. We can either wait for the new process to come into effect, or resubmit. Because of the uncertainly surrounding the implementation of the new process, we should resubmit.
David to co-ordinate with MarkN WRT responding to IESG.

-- Re. our comments on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Sep/0038.html, WSD WG
has committed to describe attachments, see
WSD WG confirms that they will support MTOM in WSDL 2.0, and will start looking at MTOM in January. Need to communicate our confidence in the completeness of our document by then. Also, may be good to collocate our March f2f meeting (in France) with WSD WG. 

Chair expects that our document will be 'substantially done' around that timeframe, so that we can meet this expectation.

-- Response from SVG WG regarding suggestion for collaboration on a
"Generic MTOM" spec, DavidF to report. (Proposal at
SVG Team contact said that they will review our documents within two weeks.


6. Attachments (9.30 + 60max)

-- Issue discussion
    o 438, Should MTOM accommodate encodings/optimizations other than
base64?, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x438. See summary
at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Sep/0083.html.
Jacek: No, because it doesn't fit our use cases and requirements.
Yves: Our use cases don't go beyond Base64.
MarkN: It should be easy/possible to add new types in later versions, if necessary.
Chair: Gudge, Noah and MarcH aren't here and may have an opinion, but their
arguments are well-established. Proposal on the table is that MTOM won't enable optimisations other than Base64 at this time.
No objection to this resolution.
Issue 438 is closed.

    o 437, How to establish base URI?,
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x437. A proposal has been
made, see http://www.w3.org/mid/1066229009.13864.17.camel@localhost
MarkN: seems straightforward
No objection to closing issue 437 as per the proposal referenced above.

    o 440, Sharing MTOM parts for identical leaf nodes,
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x440. This issue was sent
back for email discussion after last week's telcon
E-mail discussion wasn't kicked off; will go back to e-mail.

-- Status of MTOM document (modulo separating out a generic MTOM
mechanism), and what needs to be done next?

Jacek: We need to work on the representation header and marking MIME types (which may be partially covered by WSDL's work). This may require a name change on the document.
MarkN: Agreed that the work needs to be done, not sure about the name change (depends on how we package it).
Jacek: We should do these next; first MIME typing, then Representation header.
MarkN: Doing the Representation header may drive requirements for the MIME typing.
Chair: Can they be parallelised? 
Jacek, MarkN: Yes.
Jacek to kick off MIME typing discussion by forwarding previous proposals.
MarkN to kick off Representation header discussion.

Meeting adjourned at 9:56am US/Pacific.