See also: IRC log
<marc> X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/OF5CA92A5F.F4F23B74-ON852571E1.000A41D2-852571E1.000ACD83@lotus.com
<cferris> minutes from 8/30 approved
cferris: Minutes are approved
... Admin -- Anish had a couple of questions in his note. Wanted to review my
reply
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2006Sep/0017.html
cferris: Anish asked if part 0 would be in test collection. I responded that we weren't ready, but it can go in when it is. Thought part 1 was part of what we were doing. Does anyone object to this approach?
omnes: Silence
cferris: Do others agree it's importnat to get part 2 out and not hold up?
yves: To me it's mandatory to release everything up at the same time.
noah: Are there any messy issues, or just different boilerplate.
cf: None on primer (part 0), but we haven't researched that everything has been applied.
yves: Everything has been fixed in the pre PER docs (12/2005). Nothing on primer since then, so should be OK
cf: so just change boilerplate. Are people comfortable.
noah: I think so.
cf: this was before I rejoined
noah: Think there is some wordsmithing to do regarding the MEP being updated. Do 0 and 1 need a similar mod? Are there other changes?
cf: yes
noah: Good. So we can say we're incoporating
errata etc.
... not a big deal.
yves: Reminds if we rename the MEP (to ROR) we have to re-check part 0.
cf: We have homework to do.
do: Would prefer to treat test coll, MTOM separately.
cf: So need to do run-through with primer. So we're not ready.
mh: Had a quick look. There are references to req-rep MEP etc.
cf: Need to raise and address those. I need to troll through issues list to figure out what to put in "what's changed" statements.
yves: At director's call we will need to outline changes in spec and see if it's OK to go straight to PER or whether we need WD. Plan is not to go back to WD for part 0 as there is no conformance statement for part 0.
cf: How shall we do this? Everyone take some homework and raise editorial issues?
mh: Do we have to do anything to part 0, or can we just leave it out of date?
yves: New part 0 talks about how to use MTOM etc, so need to stay up to date.
mh: never mind
cf: So we need to review to see if issues have
been applied and check for consistency with part 2. Then go with 0,1,2
together.
... I won't be able to chair next week. Suggest we cancel. Can we have review
done by following week's call (20 sep)?
omnes: Silence
cf: So yes.
pete: Makes sense to publish as complete set.
noah: Assume that ROR changes are below the radar for primer, other than name.
cf: +1
mh: +1
dmh: +1
cf: Suggest that everyone go through the primer.
omnes: Whinging about airport security
cf: I will draft status text for primer. Part 1
should be OK.
... AI review. Anish was to apply changes to XML/schema. Yve, you and Anish
have reconciled the schema.
yves: Yes we've both done it.
cf: DO to respond to DH item removing property.
do: done
dh: confirmed
cf: Yves items. Done. Chris item done. Yve CVS
item done. Yve to provide link to status text done in minutes.
... Review and pub of SOAP 1.2 PR. Let's review proposed changes, including
Noah's proposed tweak, changing "changes" to "clarifications".
... Is that what you were suggesting, Noah.
noah: Yes.
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2006Sep/0013.html
cf: Incorporated, further tweaked wording ("clarifications to acommodate" didn't seem right).
noah: Did we change the name of that pattern?
cf: Yes.
Noah: should signal that
cf: Say we changed, or just use the changed name?
noah: Modulo process issues, we should. But can we call a renaming a clarification? If so, don't highlight.
yves: It was renamed because of the clarification
noah: One could argue for "to better reflect its function RR was renamed ROR" etc. etc.
yves: Would be good to put that in status, but in a non-scary way. "The name was adapted to match the meaning"
noah" To better reflect its function, the MEP formerly known as R-R ..."
do: The spec from Minnesota
cf: Could we come up with a symbol
omnes: More Prince jokes
... Meaningful pause
<cferris> Additionally, it incorporates clarifications to the
<cferris> SOAP Request Response Message Exchange Pattern (MEP)which has been renamed to SOAP Request Optional Response MEP to reflect the clarifications, regarding the
<cferris> optional presence of a SOAP envelope in the response.
cf: Let's wordsmith it on the list
noah: Spirit's right
cf: Part 3: Are we still OK with going with the current draft, with Noah's comments, including Ed Note calling for feedback, as a first draft.
noah: Link appears to have been updated in place. Are we voting on the right thing?
cf: Yes, AIs are in place.
do: What's in front of us is everything agreed to and nothing more.
several: (discussion of which link we're using)
<noah> Dated copy: http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060830.html
noah: Propose we vote on dated version linked above (http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060830.html)
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060830.html
omnes: Discussion of encoding issues with linked document
<Yves> FIXED
<Yves> hopefully :)
<DaveO> no
cf: Do we agree that we're publishing this as a first WD. Does not signal consensus on multicast issue, just putting out draft and asking for feedback. This is what I thought we decided last week. Want to confirm.
<DaveO> The soap12-part3 uri works
<noah> Noah note with typo: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Sep/0006.html
noah: Needs typo fixes.
cf: Also needs new status section. With that, are we agreed.
omnes: Silence
do: Can you give me a minute to incorporate the small changes? Want to be sure we're talking about the exact right thing.
noah: (Something about a new dated version?)
dmh: Not taking this as any concession about multicast.
<noah> Noah suggests that we will leave the most stable record in the minutes if we specifically vote on: http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060830.html as edited to reflect new status and typo receive->receiver
<noah> We can also note informally that DaveO believes he has updated the undated copy to reflect these changes, but I would prefer the minutes referred to some dated copy as a base
<noah> (or maybe my comments here have achieved that)
cf: new issues
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Sep/0005.html
dmh: This one could generate discussion.
noah: We're taking these as issues against the
FWD.
... Should split into two piles: Big important changes that will reflect on
whether to do multicast. Seem to be some of those in this list.
... (other pile is editorial)
... Would rather not put time into wordsmithing until we know we want to do
multicast at all.
Agree with splitting issues into editorial and substantive. Most substantive issue I see is the re-writing issue, which is nothing to do with multicast.
Don't think we want to take on the extra complexity of restricting to unicast.
cf: Guess we're not going to vote today.
do: I've got it!
noah: Need it in date space
do: It's almost there
noah: You're good at this!
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060906.html
<anish> dave: the previous versions should be empty, since this is the 1st wg draft
noah: Good enough to vote on.
cf: ANy objection? None.
<anish> the latest version should change to some non-dated uri
RESOLUTION: Draft http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060906.html approved as WD with no objections
<anish> actually, the 'this version' and 'latest version' should be fliped
cf: Hold off publishing til we get 0,1,2?
noah: Should handle this separately
RESOLUTION: Publish Part 3 WD ASAP. No objection.
Adjourned
omnes: Thanks, Dave (Orchard) for getting the doc together in real time