See also: IRC log
Call for corrections to minutes.
Minutes from May 2 approved.
Philippe: No w3c policy surrounding WSDL document split.
... there is a normative reference to WSDL 1.1 in the charter.
... During the member submission process, we received lots of requests for a WSDL 1.1. binding.
... if the working group really wants this change we need to discuss that within AC and AB.
... if the working group really wants this change we need to discuss that within AC and/or AB.
philippe: will cause a delay in any case
mark: sounds like a significant delay, if we choose to split the document
... extra question mark in example 31
jonathan:sections have been renumbered.
Close with no action.
<Marsh> Marc, I also see a typo in that 3.1 pseudo-syntax, last line: <wsa:ReferenceParameters>xs:any*</wsa:FaultTo>
<Marsh> closing tag name...
jonathan: values is correct
... recommends no change
<TonyR> makes sense to me
mark: close LC 41 with no action
mark: change order of abstract properties ... and will accept proposal
mark: Marc and will check this editorial
... already part of this taking care of
mark: recommends using OR
gudge: thinks it is correct
mark: extra periods - some editorial issue to be resolved
... close with no action
mark: bad URLs
<mnot> ACTION: Editors to fix RFC3987 (in both Core and SOAP binding specs) (in both Core and SOAP binding specs) refrence (make it like the others) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/09-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
<marc> ACTION: Editors to fix typo in that 3.1 pseudo-syntax, last line: <wsa:ReferenceParameters>xs:any*</wsa:FaultTo> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/09-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]
mark: close with no action'
... lc47 will fix 1st URL
<plh-home> [[ <a name="WSDL20" id="WSDL20"></a>[WSDL 2.0]</dt>
<plh-home> <dd><cite><a href="">Web Services Description Language
<plh-home> 2.0</a></cite>, ]]
mark: might be fixed
mark: message ID vs. message ID
... use message cap. I cap. D
... lc42 43 48 49 51 accepted
mark: MAP and MEP should be introduced, WSDL comment
jonathan: Not use MAP
mark: expand MAP and MEP
... Paul will respond to self
mark: no objection
<dhull> s/determine whether they should use/determine whether to use/
mark: Editorial suggestions accepted
Mark: Give to editors to deal with - accepted
mark: Last of the editorial work
... no objection - accepted
joathan: nothing really changed from his original proposal
mark: Jonathan answer to most people's questions
dhull: what are the current fault requirements
jonathan: we could define what a conformant reply would be
... suggests that David right up to a better discussion of endpoint performance
dhull: feels he has already done that
marc: once you start using any of the WS addressing structures you should conform to the specification
jonathan: if the message has any of the headers from the WS address space then we can assess the performance of the message
... what does it mean to check
... intention was to define what to return if you detect a specific error
dhull: agrees ... but it is not clear
... what behavior falls out after you clarify it
paco: for the sake of clarity likes Jonathan's proposal
dhull: going from ambiguous semantics to not ambiguous semantics requires changing the semantics
jonathan: does not feel it is necessary to change his proposal
dhull: have put together a proposal of how to solve this issue
umit: suggests that David write test proposals
<mnot> David's message: http://www.w3.org/mid/4277C95A.email@example.com
jonathan: he could augment his proposal
<uyalcina> +1 to Anish's suggestion
jonathan: conformance to the soap binding spec implies conformance to core as well
dhull: this would address some of his concerns about clarity
mark: Jonathan to make revision of his proposal - David should review it
<mnot> ACTION: Jonathan to revise proposal for LC6/LC35 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/09-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]
jonathan: there are some must statements in the core, they can only be tested once you do SOAP binding
dhull: this may not be testable with a binding that is not soapy
mark: discussed in detail at the face-to-face
mark: what is the nature of the anonymous URI - no discussion on list
mark: combine Jonathan's and Marc's suggestions
<marc> ACTION: Marc to write back to Jonathan re issue 33 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/09-ws-addr-minutes.html#action04]
jonathan: OK with Marc's suggestion
umit: should be role or ultimate receiver
marc: we should not qualify the receiver
anish: Role a node takes is an implementation issue
jonathan: safest is to say, all nodes are treated equally
mark: accept Jonathan's proposal - closed
<marc> ACTION: marc to respond to Jonathan re issue lc34 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/09-ws-addr-minutes.html#action05]