See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 15 September 2009
<gpilz> I'll drown myself tonight in sangria, made with slice-up fruit and cheap marsala
<Bob> scribenick: Katy
RESOLUTION: Approval of minutes 2009-09-08: no comments, approved
Bob: Deadline tonight
Asir: Do we have enough at the F2F to do business
Bob: Yes, 10 (with phone attendee) and possibly some who have not answered on ballot
Bob: considering schedule and
deadlines we would probably benefit for this.
... Following the tech plenary start of November
... recommend registering by 21st Sept for early bird deadline. Also sign up quick for hotels
Doug: 2nd comment - talks about
missing space can't locate the problem, sounds like it's the diffs
... Phrase of 3rd comment.
Valid Infoset for this specification are the one serializable in XML 1.0, hence the use of XML 1.0.
Agreed should be 'is' rather than 'are'.
Bob: Have all issues that are
incorporated in Sept 2nd review closable?
... no comment so we will accept them as closed
RESOLUTION: Hearing no objection, we shall publish the 2009-09-02 snapshots as heartbeat Working drafts excluding Frag
Asir: Publication in transfer
specification has a dangling reference
... to fragment
<Zakim> asir, you wanted to ask a question
Bob: We haven't updated other references and prior snapshots have included references to other specs
Asir: There are 2 references (one in middle and one in end). One in middle refers to dialect uri
Bob: Does anyone have any objection to us publishing with these links still there?
Yves: We can link to the editors' copy if we want. If the link is auto gen'd to be part of the multi doc publication then we may need to do something else
Asir: That's fine if we can fix with pub rules
Bob: No objections
RESOLUTION: Go ahead with heartbeat publications
Bob: do we have agreement for folk to produce produce action items in time for F2F so F2F is fruitful
Asir: There is only one policy assertion action item open. Should we have more?
Bob: The intention was to base other policy issues on 6403 - that was going to be a template
Asir: Could Doug and I work on the others as well prior to the F2F?
Doug: Yes, so long as we get the template one in place
Bob: Perhaps we could look at 6403 during next week's meeting
<scribe> ACTION: Asir and Doug to aim to get 6403 proposal for next week's meet as template for other policy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-101 - And Doug to aim to get 6403 proposal for next week's meet as template for other policy [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2009-09-22].
Whoops - I forgot realise that would actually create another action - sorry Asir and Doug!
<asir> That's fine - double reminder :-)
Ram: I would like to consider
dropping the WS-Frag spec and merging RT towards Frag?
... Reference to fragment goes away and fragment dialect is replaced by something similar in RT spec
Doug: This is more of a structural decision rather than semantics. (i.e. should frag be part of RT)
Bob: This has been ongoing discussion
since Raleigh F2F. It is likely that some of the RT spec may come
under discussion (based on issues)
... we may be left with just Frag
... ... We could simply say, is there anything in the RT spec that we need to keep if Frag was in place
Doug: I would like one more week for this decision
Bob: Next week is the deadline before RT issues are addressed
Ram: OK with me too
<scribe> ACTION: Katy to create new proposal for 7553 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-ws-ra-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-102 - Create new proposal for 7553 [on Katy Warr - due 2009-09-22].
RESOLUTION: New Issue-7553 opened
RESOLUTION: New Issue-7554 opened
Gil: It should be clear to the
unsubscriber, you should receive invalid subscription fault but
during unsubscribe you should receive this unsubscribe fault
... in order to indicate that the subscription is still active
<scribe> ACTION: Katy to create proposal for 7554 that considers 7553 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-ws-ra-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-103 - Create proposal for 7554 that considers 7553 [on Katy Warr - due 2009-09-22].
Gil: It is overly complex to have xs:duration and xs:datetime for subscriptions
RESOLUTION: 7586 is opened
Bob: Is this predecessor to 7478?
Gil: They are kind of separate. It has an existing proposal
Bob: Could you provide a link to that proposal in bugzilla for this issue?
Gil: yes will do
RESOLUTION: 7587 opened
RESOLUTION: 7588 opened
RESOLUTION: 7589 opened
<scribe> ACTION: Gil to produce proposal for 7589 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-ws-ra-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Gil
<scribe> ACTION: GIlbert to produce proposal for 7589 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-ws-ra-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-104 - Produce proposal for 7589 [on Gilbert Pilz - due 2009-09-22].
Asir: When do we stop new issues coming in
Bob: After Last call draft, if we
make substantive changes, it drops back to last call
... so I have no problem with new issues but substantive changes will drop us back
Doug: I agree that we need to close
issues down but now is the time to step through the specs in detail
and notice issues
... especially as we have spent more time on some specs than others
Bob: If you have any substantive
issues against RT, open them now
... as don't know the frag direction
<Ram> Revision to RFC 3987 that is in progress at IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-bis-06.
Yves: Other specs support IRI, we should too. Or we should state that each time we use 'URI' we actually mean 'IRI'
<Ram> Just want to draw the attention of this WG to the work on the revision to RFC 3987.
Doug: This is basically a global replace?
Ram: Fine with Yves suggestion.
... but want to point out that there is a revision being worked upon (3987). This does not change the discussion
... I would just like to draw people's attention to this
Bob: Is there a subsection that we should be pointing to?
<Yves> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt section 5
<Yves> 5.3.1. Simple String Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Bob: We need to be aware of code set
and representation and that IRI is intended to support many
... but simple string comparison is key here. We are saying that the 5.3.1 comparison may cause a false negative comparison
... so a comparison would be a code point by code point comparison to check for equivalence
... Are folks still ok with this resolution?
Asir: Previous specs did not do a
global replace. For example, namespace must stay as URI
... so we need to be careful
Yves: In 2003 namespaces were not IRI
enabled so back then we needed to be careful about namespaces being
URI rather than IRI
... but 2006 recommendation IRI-enables namespaces
Asir: but 2006 and 6 has other issues such as xml11
Bob: Need a bit more work on this
... Yves, Doug and Asir discuss on this on public mailing list to get a proposal ready for next week
Gil: I am concerned about the test effort for this
Ram: I have sent a proposal to address the problems with the references in the group of proposals relating to references
<Ram> Proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Sep/att-0037/WS-RA_references_update.doc
<Bob> and issues 6569, 6570, 6571, and 6572
Ram: I have gone through each of references and 1) make them point to the latest standards 2) decided whether the references are normative or not
Bob: Can we use the technique for citing references in xslt 2?
<asir> here is an example
<asir> Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Edition), T. Bray, J. Paoli, E. Maler, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, F. Yergeau, Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 16 August 2006, edited in place 29 September 2006. This edition of the XML 1.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/. The latest edition of XML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/.
Doug: Do we want to point to the latest or the dated version
Bob: would prefer that we link to a dated version rather than one that may not be yet written
RESOLUTION: Above issues 6568/69/70/71/72 resolved based on proposals from Ram. with dated version references and style guide here http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References for editors and using "Informative References instead of "Non-Normative References"
<asir> Bob said - s/Non-normative References/Informative References/g
RESOLUTION: Proposal for 7486 accepted and 7486 is resolved
Ram: Assumption that the eventing
spec has made is that the source decides what to send to subscriber
and subscriber must code defensively. Source may have some resource
constraints meaning that it cannot always provide client
... how should client deal with this? Send unsubscribe? Gil's proposal is one way to deal with this may be others.
Bob: Small server community tend not to have concept of timezones or persistence.
<dug> earth-based?? LOL
Bob: What should client do if it gets
a notification but it has no idea why because it didn't persist
previous state is another scenario
... restricted capabilities regarding time for small clients
Doug: Subscriber should have control as its the one asking for subscription. Should not be given a random period of time by which the subscription may live.
Bob: Please discuss any issues with this proposal or others on the mailing list.