See also: IRC log
<scribe> ACTION: ACTION: Felix to contact martin about css and IRI [recorded in [15]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/11-i18n-minutes.html#action01] (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-i18n-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to write to css wg that we consider a response to this comment [recorded in [16]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/11-i18n-minutes.html#action02] (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-i18n-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Felix still have to write request chard mod norm (pending) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-i18n-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: FS: Create xml:lang Wiki page (pending) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-i18n-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: AP to send email to WSCG about TP meeting (pending, should be done)
RI:Proposal for a editor list:
Francois Yergeau, Invited Expert, formerly Alis Technologies
Martin J. Durst (until Dec 2004), W3C
Richard Ishida, W3C, formerly Xerox
Addison Phillips, Invited Expert, formerly WebMethods
Misha Wolf (until Dec 2002), Reuters Ltd.
Tex Texin (until Dec 2004), XenCraft, Progress Software
FS: what to do with these editors?
RI: Micha and tex - should they be editors, or in the ack section?
FY: maybe not as editors
RI: but in the ack section, right?
FY: yes
... there is a notion of editors and authors, right?
RI: yes, but in the xmlspec dtd, you only have an element for authors
... we talked to the comm team, and
they said that people who did participate for some time could be in the ack section
... should AP be an editor?
FY: Did he edit the spec?
RI: he did some work
... but only FY and me edited the spec
FY: we had editing sessions together
... with Martin and AP
RI: AP did some preparation, but no editing
FS: Would it be o.k. to keep the whole list?
FY: O.K. by me
RI: o.k. by me
... another point: we included affiliation(s) information by the time somebody edited the
working group
... e.g. "Martin" does not say "Aoyama ...", but "W3C", since he worked on the stuff while being at W3C
... the comm team did
not talk about that specific topic so far, I'll talk to them later
<scribe> ACTION: RI to talk to comm about editors / affiliations of specs; FS to publish charmod norm after that [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-i18n-minutes.html#action05]
fs: it's pending, will start as AP comes back
Feedback from the architecture domain on ws i18n:
using the extension mechanism of wsdl is better than features and properties, as the current wd of ws i18n proposes.
features and properties might fall "out" of the CR draft of wsdl 2.0.
the open content model of wsdl 2.0 is less controverisal
Mary: features and properties are now as a "word" with lower case
... not a normative term
... good to
know that nobody is married to the "f & p" approach
FS: any progress on the WD?
Mary: I have not talked to AP during his journey
... we have a globalization architecture team at IBM
... we will meet them tomorrow, to see that the ws i18n approach fits into their architecture
... I will see who can participate in more
meetings on the topic
... IBM thinks that i18n should work on ws policy; currently they work on security
... this week we just try to get
people together
... I will also be at the tech plenary
FS: so we can meet with the ws people