See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 01 February 2011
<scribe> scribenick: dave
<gpilz> ~30F here - but I'm at 7,500 feet
<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2011Feb/0000.html
Agenda accepted.
Ram: Still working on some of the issues still, but some are ok.
Bob: Which ones are resolvable?
We will do this as we come to them.
The minutes are accepted:
Gil was to look for a dinner spot.
No changes to the table of implementations
<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11874
11874: Accepted as a new issue.
Recolved: Issue 11874 as proposed.
<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11882
Accepted as a new issue.
Proposal to fix in the obvious way.
Resolved as proposed.
<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11894
Issue accepted as a new issue.
People need time on this one.
<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11899
<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=948
Accepted as new issue.
Resolved: As proposed.
<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11928
Bob: Yves will this be fixed by the publication process.
Yves: I will take care of it.
Resolved as proposed.
<scribe> ACTION: Yves to fix as recommended. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/01-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-174 - Fix as recommended. [on Yves Lafon - due 2011-02-08].
<gpilz> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11850
Gil this has no semantic change. It is just clarification
<dug> +1 - its non-normative text that clarifies
Resolved: as proposed.
<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11790
Dug: Is a qname a proble for the dialogue type.
<dug> preferred solution: <mex:Dialect Type="{nsURI}localPart" ...
Dug: Some parsers don't hold onto
name spaces for qnames longenough.
... It looks like we might be stuck with existing parses.
Tom: Do you mean schema changes?
Dug: Yes, but also definitions of what goes on the wire.
Dave: Says this approach works.
<Bob> Note that dateTime is at risk
Dug: We could support both. Make it a string and test for the first character "{"
Tom: Described how XML processors work, e.g. they need to do some context setting.
<dug> its an attribute
Tom: In the XPath case there was no
real context present. In the case we need to force it.
... I don't like the both ways options.
Gil: I like the "{" approach -
because I am lazy.
... Both is bad.
<dug> <mex:Dialect Type="{nsURI}localPart"
BoB; Can we drop both?
Ram: I don't know yet what the final
picture is.
... Directionally, the above makes sense, but I need to talk.
<asoldano> I'm fine with single way
Bob: It sounds like a single way is
the prefered approach.
... Is there a common approach?
Gil: The "{" approach is reasonable common.
Dave: I has seen it too.
<dug> I'm pretty sure { isn't a valid char in a NS
Gil: Is it too much work to work out the type?
<asoldano> that's a common way of doing a to-string conversion of NS
Dug: I was only going to put it in the string.
Tom: This is an application level
issue.
... We define it the way we want.
Gil: Can we refine a string to enforse the format?
Ashok: You can do this with a
pattern.
... E.g. { + characters + } + charcaters.
... I can help.
Dug: This doesn't help much, since schema validation is usually off.
Gil: With schema, the text is easier.
<dug> Ashok if you can send me the xsd I'll make a more formal proposal
<gpilz> my proposal for creating a simple type that defines "{namespace URI}local part" is about using schema as a spec documentation tool
<gpilz> it's not so much about schema validation - it's just that a human reader can look at the schema and know exactly what is required
Resolution: The "{" approach looks like the direction. Please raise concerns ASAP.
<Ashok> I need to do a bit of work to figure out how to write the pattern
<scribe> ACTION: ashok will help Dug do this in schema. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/01-ws-ra-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-175 - Will help Dug do this in schema. [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2011-02-08].
Issue 11865 needs a proposal
<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11766
<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=949
Dug: The TX-Create was strange wrt
empty representations. It seemed to imply support for empty was
required.
... The text in Put looked better, so the proposal ti to apply this
text to Create.
... Dug: There were some other text changes as well, including
support for a fault.
... In Put there was a minor alignment change included.
Ram: This looks like the right directin.
Gil: It looks OK, but for a nit.
... The reference to schema validation isn't really needed.
Dug: I just want them consitent.
Tom: Drop the word Schema.
Yves: Maybe we just Put.
Dug: It's not the semantics, but the text.
<gpilz> If an implementation that validates the presented representation detects that the presented representation is invalid
Dug: Looks OK.
<gpilz> If an implementation that validates the presented representation detects that that representation is invalid . . .
Gil: There just might be other ways to do this.
Dug: I can update the propose.
Ram: Can empty still happen?
Dug: Yes, but only if the schema supports it.
Gil: So only some resources can do empty, but it is their choice.
Yves: The empty constructor was there to suppot later put to the resource
Gil: There are other use cases.
... The object defines what emapy constructure means.
Tom: What does empty constriuctor mean?
Gil: Various shades of
nothingness.
... Either use default value, or actuallyempty.
... If it can't do it, fault (emptyness not allowed).
Tom: How does the client know?
Gil: It's out of band.
Bob: There is some work to do on this.
Dug: I can update based on this discussion.
Resolved: This is the right direction, e.g. do the right thing or fault.
<scribe> ACTION: Dug to revise the proposal. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/01-ws-ra-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-176 - Revise the proposal. [on Doug Davis - due 2011-02-08].
Bob: Can we make progress of these others?
<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11698
Dug: This is editorial.
Dub: The wording is not clear. there are other examples in the specs that are already clearer in similar cases.
Ram: Need more time.
<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11703
Dug: This is just editorial, using the text from enumeration.
Gil: You support filter, you supprt teh dialect I am using. Is this what I get back?
Dug: Yes.
Ram: there is a punction problem in the early part of the spec.
Dug: I can do a comma, but it's a different spec.
Bob: Just leave it.
Resolved: Issue as proposed.
<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11697
Dug: Couldn't find a generic fault.
Dig: I lean to CWNA.
There was a slight drift into fantacy land.
Ram: Isn't there a fault for this.
Bob: Please find one.
... this appears to be outside of the protocol.
Resolved: Close with no action.
<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11723
Dug: This is the same as above. Close with no action.
Resolved: Close with no action.
Bob: Proposal close with no
action.
... Its a breaking change.
Dug: The semantic stays the same, but the name changes.
Tom: In SCA this did happen. If there is other real important stuff, we will fix this too.
Dug: There is no real implementation history to protect.
Gil: The proposal isn't clear. What is changing, the qname?
Dig: The text is OK, but on the wire we send maxelements, but get back elements.
Bob: Defer if we do get breaking changes.
+1
Resolved: Defer this to later if there is another breaking proposal (that matters).
Already closed.
Ram: Needs more time.
Dug: Close with no action.
Resolved: Close with no action.
Dug: Straight forwad.
Ram: will look into this.
Bob: Well done on the issues.
Dug: The NS for the specs and the
scenarion are different
... Let the scenarion stay in the editor space.
Bob: Where would they stay long term?
Yves: They would stay in the group's namespace.
Bob: Put them in the scenarios directory within the wg.
<dug> now: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/scenario
<dug> bob: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/test
<dug> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/test/scenario.html
<dug> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/test/scenario/Animal.xsd
Bob: Yves is this OK?
Yves: Yes.
Dug: The scenario docs will start differently than the other specs.
Gil: This is oK.
<Yves> if you used an entity for the ns, then it's easy to rebuild and adjust
<dug> well, I need to move it in cvs too
Resolved: As proposed.
Nothing more on the scenarions.
Li: When will these be stable?
<dug> 12:01pm the first day of the f2f
Dug: No we still have some more work
on eventing.
... What is there is pretty stable, But we may add more feature
tests.
Bob: You can write code now.
Li: Is there an actual freeze time.
Bob: Can we freeze until the F2F.
... it will change at the F2F.
... Is a week OK?
... This always happens.
... Some freeze is needed, but will never be stable once we get to
the F2F.
... We still need to make as few changes as possible as wel
approach the F2F.
Ram: Agrees.
... Wants a freze date if possible.
Dug: I understand. I hope people are coding to the spec and not the scenario document. This is to test the spec, not the scenarion.
<Bob> Time gentlemen
Bob: We will test the spec. and the
meeting has ended.
... But we will try to be as stable as we can.
<dug> @yves - I hope I said "NOT code for the test"
<Yves> the second time, yes, not the first time :) (but it's late here)
<asoldano> bye