Based on member only IRC loc
1. Roll Present 9/8 Canon, Herve Ruellan IBM, David Fallside IBM, Noah Mendelsohn (scribe) IONA Technologies, Suresh Kodichath Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin Nokia, Michael Mahan SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau Excused IBM, John Ibbotson Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley Regrets BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham Oracle, Anish Karmarkar W3C, Yves Lafon Absent BEA Systems, David Orchard Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky SAP AG, Volker Wiechers SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing 2. agenda review [Noah] DF: any other business? [Noah] No. 3. Approval of last week's minutes postponed. [Noah] topic: action item review [Noah] 2004/09/22: DavidF [Noah] Generate PR boilerplate (due 6 oct) PENDING [Noah] 2004/10/06: Yves (was Gudge) [Noah] Ask Vine for clarification on precedence comment on 501 reply (and 502 about IRI) NO NEWS [davidF] yves: re your action item ... did you find out anything? [Yves] I sent the email and discussed with Martin, but no reply from the i18n group yet [Noah] Yves action still PENDING [Noah] 2004/09/29: Gudge [Noah] Write some text about using the extension mechanism in RRSHB to add HTTP header information PENDING, will do by Fri. [Noah] Discussion: where to put the text? [Noah] Check minutes of 29 Sept. Gudge agrees. [davidF] yves: re your action item on IESG review ... status? [Noah] 2004/10/06: Yves [Noah] Seek IESG review (via Dan Connolly and Martin Duerst) for XOP media type PENDING [Noah] We don't see any email on this. [Yves] status is that Dan or Martin will process it [Noah] 2004/10/06: Marc [Noah] Review Media Type document by Oct 15 DONE [Yves] there is a call scheduled next week with IETF, so they may discuss the registration [davidF] yves: re your action item on charter extension .... status? [Noah] CORRECTION: 2004/10/06: Yves [Noah] Seek IESG review (via Dan Connolly and Martin Duerst) for XOP media type DONE [Yves] sent to plh and hugo, no news yet [Yves] so pending [Noah] 2004/10/06: Yves [Noah] Figure out how to have a charter extension until June PENDING [Noah] 2004/10/06: JohnI [Noah] Run a sanity check on the implemtation page (by next week) PENDING [Noah] 2004/10/06: Suresh [Noah] Send draft email to xmlp-comment, public-i18n-ws@w3.org and originator to re-close issue 501 [Noah] CLARIFICATION: above is ambiguous as to whether draft or final email [Noah] Suresh: I think we approved draft for final sending. DONE [Noah] DF: Any feedback? [Noah] Suresh: No, Andrea on vacation. [Noah] DF: How long? [Noah] Suresh checking. [Noah] 2004/10/06: Anish [Noah] Send email to xmlp-comments to close the issue 506 with the proposed resolution (and edit the editor's copy) DONE [Noah] 2004/10/06: XOP Editors [Noah] Incorporate the first 3 comments on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004Sep/0030.html PENDING [Noah] 2004/10/06: MTOM Editors [Noah] Incorporate http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004Sep/0031.html proposal PENDING [Noah] 2004/10/06: MTOM Editors [Noah] Insert the above "take 3" text PENDING [Noah] Suresh: Andrea mails say she'll return 10/14/2004 [Noah] End action item list 4. Status reports Status report: XOP media type registration/ [Noah] Yves and Dan Connolly have been corresponding. [Noah] DF: believe registration going ahead [Noah] Gudge: who will drive this in IETF? [Yves] IESG is handling this [Noah] DF: Mark Nottingham did last one using the old process. This is new process, where Dan Connolly and Martin Duerst carry it forward. [Noah] Gudge: confirming editors actions not done. Gudge will do by end of week. [Noah] DF: status, media type reg. is in process Status report: XMLP/WSD Task Force and WSDL Media Type document [Noah] Marc Hadley had only 1 comment. [davidF] http://www.w3.org/mid/C2E1740E-1877-11D9-9BE0-000A95BC8D92@Sun.COM" [Noah] Some time spent reviewing above thread. [Noah] DF: not personally convinced a substantive issue [Noah] DF: this review was asked by WSD so they could decide on sending last call. If this is editorial, it shouldn't hold things up. [Noah] DF: other opinions? [Noah] Gudge: agree. spec allows two approaches, only shows examples of 1. [Noah] DF: Marc Hadley can raise as last call comment if he so desires [Noah] Gudge: don't examples 2 & 4 cover both approaches? [Noah] DF: propose we tell WSD "we have no formal comments, publication is fine" [Noah] Agreed without objection. [Gudge] ACTION: TonyG to send e-mail to WSDesc WG saying we're happy for them to take the XML MEdia Types doc to last call due 2004-10-15 Status report: SOAP layered on HTTP & IETF policy [Noah] No progress on this topic. [Noah] Pete Wenzel joins the call. Status report: Future of XMLP WG [Noah] DF: previous discussion suggests keeping WG going in background mode. Yves looking into necessary 6 month charter extension. 5. Candidate Rec Status report: tests [Noah] No news. [Noah] topic: Issue 501 [Noah] DF: Last week we dealt with half of feedback by sending email drafted by Noah. [Noah] DF: Other half...Andrea's on vacation so no progress. [Noah] DF: thus, still pending. [Noah] topic: Issue 502 [Noah] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x502 [Noah] See Noah's draft response to Martin http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Sep/0003.html [Noah] and also Noah's second thoughts: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Sep/0006.html [Noah] DF: have some doubts that last week minutes are accurate, since it says issues 501 and 502 closed. That's wrong. [Noah] Corrected links: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Sep/0006.html [Noah] And: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004Oct/0003.html [davidF] & http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004Oct/0002.html [davidF] I18N comment ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Sep/0016.html [Noah] Gudge: Noah [Noah] Gudge: Noah's 2nd proposal takes us back to original text. Question: how to deal with i18n group concerns. [Noah] Gudge: Herve, I don't know whether my impl. will handle IRIs. Will yours? [Noah] Herve: I don't know either. [Noah] The protocol or format element where IRIs are used should be [Noah] explicitly designated to be able to carry IRIs. That is, the [Noah] intent is not to introduce IRIs into contexts that are not defined [Noah] to accept them. For example, XML schema [XMLSchema] has an [Noah] explicit type "anyURI" that includes IRIs and IRI references. [Noah] Therefore, IRIs and IRI references can be in attributes and [Noah] elements of type "anyURI". On the other hand, in the HTTP [Noah] protocol [RFC2616], the Request URI is defined as an URI, which [Noah] means that direct use of IRIs is not allo [Noah] IRIs are meant to replace URIs in identifying resources for [Noah] protocols, formats and software components which use a UCS-based [Noah] character repertoire. These protocols and components may never need [Noah] to use URIs directly, especially when the resource identifier is used [Noah] simply for identification purposes. However, when the resource [Noah] identifier is used for resource retrieval, it is in many cases [Noah] necessary to determine the associated URI because most retrieval [Noah] mechanisms currently only are defined for URIs. In this case, IRIs [Noah] can serve as presentation elements f [Noah] or URI protocol elements. An [Noah] example would be an address bar in a Web user agent. (Additional [Noah] rationale is given in Section 3.1.) [Noah] Long discussion of what would or wouldn't satisfy i18n's concerns. [Noah] Key questions seem to include: is i18n encouraging use of new chars in http: scheme identifiers? Noah infers: only in user agents, not as identifiers "on the web". Noah also infers: IRI draft encourages development of new schemes or perhaps revisions of old to allow new chars. [Noah] Gudge: maybe, I'm not so sure. [Noah] Gudge: just ran a realtime test and Herve's endpoint correctly handled a [Noah] "Unicode" character. [Noah] Noah: proposed to go back to old text, with "NOTE: the use of the xsd:anyURI type anticipates the possibility that in future schemes will be developed that use IRI rather than URI naming for resources." [Noah] Some positive feedback. [Noah] Mike Mahon: Nokia agrees [Noah] Herve: our implementation works, so we agree :-) [Noah] Pete: SeeBeyond OK [Noah] DF: Proposal, revert to original text with note: "NOTE: the use of the xsd:anyURI type anticipates the possibility that in future schemes will be developed that use IRI rather than URI naming for resources." [Gudge] Original text is in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Sep/0003.html [Gudge] under <current/?. [Noah] <current section="4.2.2"> [Noah] The type of the resource attribute information item is xs:anyURI. The [Noah] value of the resource attribute information item is a URI that identifies [Noah] the Web resource whose representation is carried in the rep:Representation [Noah] element information item parent of the resource attribute information item. [Noah] </current> [Noah] <proposed> [Noah] The type of the resource attribute information item is xs:anyURI. The [Noah] value of the resource attribute information item is a URI that identifies [Noah] the Web resource whose representation is carried in the rep:Representation [Noah] element information item parent of the resource attribute information item. [Noah] NOTE: the use of the xsd:anyURI type anticipates the possibility that in future schemes will be developed that use IRI rather than URI naming for resources. [Noah] </proposed> [Noah] Gudge: Microsoft implementation also supports "weird" characters in URIs [Noah] DF: Proposal to end discussion and close the remainder of issue 502 with the above proposed text, as well as a note to i18n indicating that there will be log files on the test page showing CR-level interop using non-ASCII chars. [Noah] AGREED without objection. [Noah] ACTION: Gudge to respond to i18n on issue 502 [Noah] ACTION: Editors to incorporate modified text on issue 502 (Gudge will do it) [davidF] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x507 [Noah] topic: issue 507 examples in XOP [Noah] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x507 [Noah] The two examples in session "1.2 Example" show the one that Prior to [Noah] the XOP processing "look" shorter than the one apply XOP processing. [Noah] It is hard for reader to understand why using the XOP mean "more [Noah] efficiently serializing XML Infosets" if you show the one apply XOP is [Noah] LONGER in the example. (I understand what you mean there, but at frist [Noah] glance, the example show reader, the one prior tot he XOP is "more [Noah] efficiently serializing". [Noah] Basically, it is comparing Apple to Orange because the first one in [Noah] the example does not include HTTP header at all. To make it a fair [Noah] compasion could be [Noah] done by replacing (or adding) the one which include [Noah] HTTP header but without XOP processing there. [Noah] Gudge: the reasons the base64 example looks shorter is we don't show all the octets [Gudge] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/3/06/Attachments/XOP.html#example [Noah] DF: proposal on issue 507. Add note saying: "NOTE: The sample base 64 data is smaller than would be typical and the binary octets are not shown; in practice, the optimized form is likely to be much smaller than the original." [Noah] AGREED without dissent. [Gudge] ACTION: Gudge to send closing e-mail for 507 [Gudge] ACTION Editors to add note saying: "NOTE: The sample base 64 data is smaller than would be typical and the binary octets are not shown; in practice, the optimized form is likely to be much smaller than the original." to XOP [Zakim] Attendees were TonyGraham, David_Fallside, Noah, Gudge, Suresh, Canon, +1.858.831.aaaa, MikeM, PeteW [RRSAgent] I see 6 open action items: [RRSAgent] ACTION: [1] [RRSAgent] ACTION: TonyG to send e-mail to WSDesc WG saying we're happy for them to take the XML MEdia Types doc to last call due 2004-10-15 [2] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Gudge to respond to i18n on issue 502 [3] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Editors to incorporate modified text on issue 502 (Gudge will do it) [4] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Editors to add note saying: "NOTE: The sample base 64 data is smaller than would be typical and the binary octets are not shown; in practice, the optimized form is likely to be much smaller than the original." to XOP [5] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Gudge to send closing e-mail for 507 [6]