See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 26 May 2009
<Bob> scribe: Paul Nolan
<Bob> scribenick: Paul
Approval of Agenda
Katy asks if we can touch on 6920
Added to agenda 6920
Reqquest to change date of Sept F2F
Agenda accepted as amended
Minutes 19th May
RESOLUTION: Minutes of 2009-05-19 approved w/o
call for attendees for June F2F
request from Dave to move 2 weeks out
<Katy> 29th - 1st October proposed
<dug> LOL Bob is planning Ashok's vacation
Agreed to move date
<Bob> New f2f date is Sep 29-Oct 1
<Bob> Nov TPAC http://www.w3.org/2009/11/TPAC/overview.html
Not much gap between Sept meeting and the November one
Geoff: travel approval may be a problem
Geoff: withdraws new issue
All issues accepted
Bob: which snapshot shall we use for
... By 17 June heartbeat publication needed
<dug> does the NS change?
Bob: Suggests we publish next version as public working draft
<asir> Yes the namespace name will change
<dug> is that something the editors will do or will yves?
May snapshot will become ythe next public working draft
<Geoff> Microsoft will need to submit formal objection by first week of June to be weaved into status section of second public working draft
wu: meeting Thur. Shared proposal with team. Please have a look
Gil: issue. Formatting of wrapped and raw notifications. Suggest using a WSDL and Mex to describe formatting of notification
Bob: is more time needed before the group agrees?
Dug: highlights suggestions in wiki for using Policy
Gil: suggestion b1 avoids the need for full Policy processing capabilities
Bob: can everyone submit pros and
cons to these suggestions?
... can we have a coordinator? Ideally someone not too close to the topic
Bob: volunteer required to run with this topic
Doug volunteered to work with him
<dug> in/out of T ns, in/out of same doc, pros/cons of Dialect attribute
Bob: Please cover in/out of T NS, same doc or different ones
Results presented at F2F
Gil: This issue is for some way of indicating that there was a problem with a PUT but it is not a message formatting problem
Geoff: should this be application specific to avoid complexity
Gil: could be optional so need not be complex
Katy: Enumeration schema showed up as invalid when checked
<Katy> In the schema, replace:
<Katy> <xs:attribute ref="xml:lang" />
<Katy> <xs:attribute name="lang" type="xs:language" />
<Katy> and remove the namespace prefix "xml" from the enumeration message.
<Katy> <wsen:Reason xml:lang="language identifier" >
<Katy> </wsen:Reason> ?
<Katy> <wsen:Reason lang="language identifier" >
<Katy> </wsen:Reason> ?
asir: looks like schema was missing
<Katy> "language used in the contents and attribute values of any element in an XML
Katy: will try the suggestion
dug: why do we need the attribute?
xxx: SOAP 1.2 normally covers xml:lang but enumeration is for a broader audience
Geoff: extension elements and attributes must not use same NS as spec
<gpilz> doesn't namespace="##other"
Gil: Doesnt "##other" cover this?
Geoff: this suggestion is for completeness
RESOLUTION: Resolve Issue-6906 as proposed
katy: suggestion does work
proposal is to update schema to import namespace
Eventing does not need updating
RESOLUTION: Resolve Issue-6920 with proposal #1
<gpilz> "generate" is completely unconstrained
<gpilz> "MAY generate" and "MUST generate" are semantically equivalent
Geoff: would like to check through all occurances
Bob: shall we delay for a week?
Dug: Geoff was going to explain resource representation
<asir> I thought that Katy wanted to discuss issue 6721 rather than 6712
Dug: compare Create with Get - do they return the same thing?
<Bob> Katy said that Paul can cover it in her absence
Geoff: Can we make assumptions clearer in the spec
Dug: Create and Put have some symetry. The simple case is clear however what happens with an instruction
Geoff: instructions and simple elements can looks the same however they do not need to
<dug> asir: I like consistency
<asir> not true
Geoff: service will provide the means to distinguish between the two
<Katy> Bye, have a nice summer, speak to you in Sept (when all the issues are closed :o) )