See also: IRC log
saz: testCase and testRequirement
carlosi: requirement != test
saz/carlosi: should we allow multiple requirements in one assertion?
<JibberJim> I think test case and requirement is a good thing, I agree with carlos's emails.
<drooks> it may take several test cases to prove a requirement... hence an assertion should be allowed to have multiple test cases
<JibberJim> Yes shadi, that's what I meant, and we allow both
Carlos, jim: requirement <--> testcase is a many-to-many thing
RESOLUTION: testCase and testRequirement are distinct and should be both included
saz: earl for streaming contents?
jim: EARL doesn't need to do anything. We already allow people to define their own pointers into contents
saz: nice to speel that out + example for earl
... no meet next week; use mailinglist
<shadi> ci: about to propose additions to the schema
saz: one namespace for http?
CarlosI: possible ambiguity re: extension headers
nrk: http:request-this, http:response-that
... two-level namespace
saz: that looks like what johannes suggests
provisional resolution as above, but wait for johannes before firming it up?