See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: hugo
Sept 23 minutes at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Sep/0043.html approved
Jonathan asks editors to review their list of action items at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html and let him know when one has been done
Chair goes throught his list (see agenda)
Hugo: regarding the format required for the publication of the Z notation document, the normative version must be the one with unicode chars
... we can provide an alternate one with graphics instead of them
... tests on lists.w3.org with Paul have shown that it works for lots of people
Jonathan: still working on this; I just need to put Kevin's in
Arthur has questions about changes that we've made that aren't a result of a LC issue
Jonathan: so far, we only did that as a result of Bijan's F2F presentation
Anish: all the F2F changes are done
Anish: the only issue left is the proposed text about expanding the introduction text
DBooth: does that affect the media type registration?
Jonathan: any comments?
... we have consensus to accept Anish's proposal
RESOLUTION: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Sep/0048.html accepted as new intro text for Media Type Description Note
Jonathan: we have several options for going forward
... maybe it would be best to hear from XMLP before taking our vote to go to LC
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to contact XMLP to review the Media Type Description document in order for us to go to LC with it
Anish: I would like people to make sure I did the right thing with my edits
Jonathan: we could decide to go to LC next week if everything goes right
<Marsh> ACTION: Working Group to review Media Type note in preparation for LC vote next week.
DBooth: I have a related item about the media type registration
... there is an editors note at the top of appendix A saying that the WG does not agree on the media type
Jonathan: in the XML Core WG, somebody thought that we did not need to register a new media type
... however, I heard that there was a W3C policy pushing us to do so
<pauld> observes that application/soap+xml media type was published only this week: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3902.txt
David: I think that it's an informal policy
... moreover, it seems to me that it's something we would want to do
Tom: why is it application/ instead of text/?
Jonathan: an RFC (not sure which number) prefers application/* to text/* for XML vocabularies, saying that XML's not for human consumption
<pauld> points tom at this article: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/07/21/dive.html
Jonathan: originally, you could serve XML as application/xml or text/xml
... now, they are pushing people to use application/xml
Tom: I am a little worried about interoperability
... it sounds that my browser wouldn't know how to deal with a WSDL document with such a media type
Arthur: I believe that it's an IETF RFC which says that we should register a media type, and use application/*
... and we could specify what to do in cases where the document is read by a Web browser
<dbooth> RFC 2048 discusses media type registration
Jonathan: there might be an issue here about registering a new media type, interacting with existing tools, etc.
<dbooth> RFC 3023 discusses registration specifically of XML media types
[ people do some tests with browsers ]
Arthur: the purpose of the +xml convention is that you can deal with such cases gracefully
DBooth: the Web Arch says: In general, a representation provider SHOULD NOT assign Internet media types beginning with "text/" to XML representations. -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-media-types
<dbooth> In general, a representation provider SHOULD NOT assign Internet media types beginning with "text/" to XML representations.
Tom: I think that a new media type is going to be trouble
... Axis doesn't pay attention to the media type of WSDL documents
<sanjiva> If we don't introduce a mime type don't we lose the fragment stuff?
Jonathan: do we want to track this as an issue?
<sanjiva> If that was discussed I'll shut up
<dorchard> We have to do media type registration for frag-id.
Arthur: we can do some tests
Jonathan: why don't David or Hugo set up a test resoure?
<dorchard> what is the issue?
<Marsh> Whether to recommend people serve up WSDL as application/wsdl+xml
<Marsh> Or whether application/xml is a better choice.
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to set up a application/wsdl+xml on the W3C site for tests
<dorchard> it has to be wsdl+xml
Hugo: but WSDL documents are targetted to WSDL processors, not people through Web browsers
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask what impact the outcome would have
Tom: I often look at some
DBooth: what would the outcome of the test be?
... it will not be a WSDL-specific problem
<pauld> i'd create a perl CGI first line print "Content-type: application/wsdl+xml\\n"
Jonathan: agreed, it would be a problem for the TAG
DBooth: will that affect our registration?
... I discovered that we were supposed to do this a while ago
Jonathan: we should just go ahead for now
DBooth: with application/wsdl+xml?
DBooth: the deadline for us was 2 weeks before LC
... our LC ends on Monday
... why don't we extend our LC period for them?
Jonathan: what about the 18th?
... schema and maybe XForms asked for extensions too
<asir> displays fine for me
Decision to use "WSDL" for the Macintosh File Type Code
Jonathan: let's separate the content and display discussions
Arthur: the advantages is that it's precise and can be validated
... see screenshots at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Sep/0076.html
Jonathan: we always expressed interest; does that meet our expectations?
DBooth,Sanjiva: it exceeds my expectation
Amy: the symbols do not talk to me [ paraphrased by scribe ]
Jonathan: we talked about including a short intro to describe common Z notation symbols
Amy: it's better indeed, even though there still is a risk of making this dense for people not used to it
Roberto: it looks great; there is duplication between English and Z, which is troubling me as an editor
... it's twice as much work
... and we don't know what the reaction of our readers will be; we wouldn't want to have people *not* read the WSDL 2.0 because of this
Kevin: I'm concerned that we're adding another layer to the spec; people have complained that there are too many layers with the abstract components, the mapping to XML, ...
Arthur: we previously discussed having a reader's digest version
<dbooth> Kevin, I think "normal readers" can primarily read the Primer. The spec is more intended for people who need the precision.
Arthur: there could be another version, lighter one, with Z
... however, we wouldn't want another document for that; we could have English statements very close in writing as well in placement to the Z statements
<dbooth> +1 to Arthur's comment. MUCH easier to maintain correspondence if the Z is integrated, rather than in a separate document.
Dave: this seems weird to me to add the Z notation in light of the decision we made about spec simplification
DBooth: I view the Z notation to help me to clarify, whereas I don't see the boilerplate stuff as necessary
Jonathan: it seems that we need to publish a draft with the notation in to see how people are going to react to it
Roberto: that means reformating the text, and potentially having to take it out afterwards; that's a lot of work!
... it would be better not to remove any text for now, just to add Z so that it can be removed easily
... we need feedback to make a decision
Jonathan: we could get feedback from our companies
<Arthur> I can keep the Z separate from the existing text
Jonathan: we could publicize Arthur's example too
Arthur: we can do the Z as a net addittion, in a different namespace, so that it will be easy to deal with later on
Kevin: is Z WSDL-specific?
Arthur: I did it for the Infoset too
... as a test case
Kevin: maybe we could recommend this to other WGs
Jonathan: I hear that we do like this but we're concerned about our users' feedback
... I suggest that we should just include it and we'll see what feedback we get
DBooth: it seems to me that gathering more feedback is the slower route; we've always endorsed this, so we should just go ahead with this
Jonathan: the proposal is to go ahead and include the Z notation in the drafts
Kevin: I would like to have another version, more readable, without the Z notation
<sanjiva> hmm not passing thru
<sanjiva> hang on
Consensus to accept the amended proposal
<Marsh> RESOLVED: Appoint Arthur as Part 1 editor
Arthur is appointed as Part 1 editor to add Z notation
Hugo: we also need Z in Part 3
Arthur: Agreed, we need Z everywhere we make formal statements
... but let's just start with Part 1 for now
... I would like a consistency check be part of the build process
Hugo: Arthur and I need to talk about it
RESOLUTION: Integrate Z notation to drafs
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to add Z notation to Part 1
Jonathan describes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Sep/0079.html
Jonathan: XML Core suggested a naming prefix (not a namespace prefix) to hint that our fragment ids are WSDL-related
Arthur: sounds reasonable
<sanjiva> Jonathan: Can we decide the application/xml thing? we have the evidence we need.
Arthur: we could use "wsdl-"
Jonathan: any objection to "wsdl-"?
Arthur: actually, I like "wsdl." better
Jonathan: any objection to "wsdl."?
RESOLUTION: we have no issue about our scheme name
... we will preface our names with "wsdl."
... LC6d closed
<scribe> ACTION: Editors to add "wsdl." to XPointer syntax
Sanjiva: we have evidence that application/wsdl+xml does not display well in lots of popular browsers
People report that application/wsdl+xml renders under IE
<dmoberg> both 9999 and 9998 in my version of IE is displayed
<sanjiva> +1 for Hugo's proposal
<Arthur> I opened http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/Service1.wsdl with IE and it first opened in Wordpad because I had made that file association.
<Arthur> I changed the .wsdl files association to IE and http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/Service1.wsdl opened as an XML document.
Hugo: I think that we need to register application/wsdl+xml; the rendering problem is orthogonal to me, and that Tom may want to ask the TAG want they think about media types not rendering about browsers not rendering ...+xml documents well
DaveO: we define frag ids, we need to indeed
<Arthur> This works because of the .wsdl extension.
DaveO: we could report our experience about the deployment of our application/...+xml media type
<Arthur> IE downloaded it and then matched the .wsdl extension, not the Mime Content Type
Jonathan: maybe we should stay silent about what the right thing to do is
Tom: maybe we should say nothing and let the problem work itself out
Arthur: actually, I originally proposed text/xml but got shot down
<pauld> wants to register application/wsdl+xml and let the world sort this out ..
Jonathan: proposes to do nothing about it, and maybe do something about the rendering issue later
Arthur: we can also post a bug report for Firefox
[ Discussions around the +xml syntax ]
<dbooth> This document standardizes five new media types -- text/xml,
<dbooth> application/xml, text/xml-external-parsed-entity, application/xml-
<dbooth> external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd -- for use in
<dbooth> exchanging network entities that are related to the Extensible Markup
<dbooth> Language (XML). This document also standardizes a convention (using
<dbooth> the suffix '+xml') for naming media types outside of these five types
<dbooth> when those media types represent XML MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
<dbooth> Extensions) entities.
<dbooth> -- from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt
RESOLUTION: no change with regards to our media type