XMLP WG telcon minutes, 7 July 2004
Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
IBM, David Fallside
IBM, John Ibbotson (scribe)
IONA Technologies, Suresh Kodichath
Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel
W3C, Yves Lafon
IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
Canon, Herve Ruellan
Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer
BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers
SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley
BEA Systems, David Orchard
Nokia, Michael Mahan
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
2. Agenda review
3. Approval of minutes postponed
4. Review of Action Items
Yves Still a few clarifications needed for Rec20. So item not completed
2 or 3 new issues (Agenda item 6 - new issues)
Anish Section 1.2 text Issue 479 - done
Incorporate Issue 479 part 3 - done
Yves All changes mereged - Ed copy up to date
Nilo expects to provide updated primer by July 13th
5. Media type registrations
David - was it published ?
XML/WSD task force - no update
Primer review postponed
6. Last call issues
470 - pushback from Graham Klyne
URL should be 44 instead of 43
Gudge is the example valid ?
David how solid is the content-type ?
Gudge his concern is to indicate what the original infoset was
We haven't figured this out
Quoted RFC does include an interpretation
David hits on Google on original-content-type
Internet draft 7/2000 expired
Gudge its intent is error handling
seems like the right kind of header
David no lingering semantics from error message ?
Gudge don't think so
David so how do we let people know the effect of the original mime type ?
Gudge indicate that we have a XOP/MTOM is the content type of the outer Mime package
subsequently don'e have to register another media type
Happy to accept the change
Does the 8-ball know whether this will go back to LC
Yves Don't think so
it's just a hint that can be over-ridden at runtime.
David what does the group think ?
Record in minutes, WG generally in favour but will wait for the larger
group to convene before making a decision.
Don't contact Graham yet.
David One part to decide, part 4
agreed with commentator, Gudge drafted reply
draft only appeared before meeting - returning to it
Any updates Gudge ?
Gudge none received - still happy
David any comments ?
any problems ?
do we need to wait for WG ?
heading towards accepting the resolution
No objections received from WG
Accept Gudge's draft text.
Finished resolution of 479
David With exception of Gudge's part 4 text
Agreed all sub-parts
Any objection to closing 479 with all the sub-resolutions ?
issue 479 closed
Volunteer needed to send response to commentator
AI to Yves
David does WG agree this is an editorial issue ?
Resolved this is an editorial issue
AI to editors and response to commentator
Issue from WSD WG
David would like to keep in sync with WSD WG
provides some specific text
anyone think this should be left to larger WG ?
Gudge happy to add text
Yves not sure we need to add anything at all
David any other opinions ?
David wait until next week for discussion
XOP issue reference to Base64 specification
propose to use a more recent RFC
Gudge doesn't define canonical form therfore reject
David propose to reject since schema defines a canonical form
AI to Gudge to respond to commentator
XOP: Why element content only ?
David did debate why we can't optimise attribute content
Gudge refers to section 1 which only refers to elements
then inserted text in section 1 which split sentence
and didn't change.
Suggest we remove "As a result," in into to XOP (simplest)
Gudge comentator not complaining - just not clear
David proposal we remove "As a result," from paragraph 5
AI to Gudge and editors to respond and update XOP spec
XOP namespace declaration in original infoset
Gudge he's correct
we should change the example
should we call out this elsewhare ?
don't think we can prohibit this from happening
Gudge if we hoist the namespace, won't have the same infoset you started with
David do explicitly say you have to re-constitute the infoset
propose we change the example and accept the suggestion
David propose we accept the actions proposed by the commentator
AI to Gudge and Editors
Clarificaton on format change
Gudge change word "format" to "semantics" but prefer if more people here
Wait for wider group
Gudge to write proposal to wider WG
David is Canon still going to send LC comments ?
David are they substantial ?
JJ don't know
David they are late so WG reserves right to not consider them
ContentID in MTOM
David in general, we know this is trus
did we drop the ball in executing resolution to 451
is this editorial
Gudge it's editorial
action to Eds to implement 451 :-)
David we can take this as our resolution
is there enough info for editors to resolve ? checking .....
yes, leave to editors
proposal - ask eds to implement 451
AI to Pete Wenzel
Still not at time, chair proposes to close meeting
Gudge offers to do editorial work since lead editor is out until end of Aug
David take it offline to contact Noah and Mark
no other items, meeting closed