00:04:17 Valentina has joined #sml 00:04:28 rrsagent, generate minutes 00:04:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html Valentina 00:05:29 rrsagent, generate minutes 00:05:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html Valentina 00:17:07 rrsagent, generate minutes 00:17:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html Valentina 00:20:31 rrsagent, please make records member visible 00:20:31 I'm logging. I don't understand 'please make records member visible', Valentina. Try /msg RRSAgent help 00:20:50 rrsagent, please make records member-visible 00:21:29 rrsagent, generate minutes 00:21:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html Valentina 00:30:54 Kumar: doesn't seem to reach consensus, proposes to move to the next bug and discuss this in a next call 00:31:42 rrsagent, generate minutes 00:31:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html Valentina 00:32:37 Jim: feels that there is disagreement at a fundamental level so doesn't want to stop here 00:34:54 Sandy: proposes to use this approach : if(cond1) then return equal; else if(cond2) then return not equal; else if (impl defined) else - if(true) - or -else return not equal- 00:36:17 Sandy: what we should say : if you can't say they are different then you can't say they are the same; this is what Sandy had proposed in bugzilla 00:37:16 Kumar: somebody should come with a proposal 00:38:03 Sandy: I already have a proposal, as decribed by the if(cond1) approach above 00:41:27 John: I don't think we can get over this until we specify what cond1 and cond2 are 00:42:11 Sandy: cond1=string comparison for URI ( assuming they have one) 00:43:35 Sandy: before we move to cond2, any suggestions on a better cond1 ? 00:43:57 MSM: rfc gives you several additional steps 00:44:34 Sandy: we use string comparison for IF so we should be consistent 00:44:39 MSM: okay, makes sense 00:45:26 Sandy: cond2=deep compare; (tree comparison, if anything in the tree is different than they are different) 00:46:48 Sandy: tricky if you return two elements with the same type; in infoset there is no way to say if they are different 00:47:15 Sandy: exmpale on the tricky part :

00:47:28 s/exmpale/example 00:47:52 s/two elements with the same type/two elements that look the same 00:48:46 Kumar: propose to make everything starting with cond2 implementation dependant since it may be expensive to do this deep compare 00:49:38 John: not wise since conformance is not meaningful 00:49:53 Kumar: then we'll have a spec with no implemetation 00:50:23 MSM: we aim for a meaningful spec 00:51:45 rrsagent, generate minutes 00:51:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html Valentina 00:53:51 You are cordially invited for dinner at 6:30pm today at Chantanee Thai Restaurant, Bellevue (http://www.chantanee.com/). 00:55:16 MSM has joined #sml 15:27:48 RRSAgent has joined #sml 15:27:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-irc 15:28:02 scribe zeckert 15:28:09 Scribe zeckert 15:28:29 scribe: zeckert 15:28:50 scribenick: zulah 15:29:07 Jim has joined #sml 15:29:10 scribe: zulah 15:29:19 scribenick: zeckert 15:29:57 johnarwe has joined #sml 15:29:59 meeting: SML F2F 15:30:12 meeting: SML F2F day 3 15:30:22 chair: johnarwe 15:30:29 Kumar has joined #sml 15:32:35 action: Jim to create a proposal for #4992 15:32:35 Sorry, couldn't find user - Jim 15:33:04 ginny has joined #sml 15:33:06 action: james to create a proposal for #4992 15:33:57 MSM has joined #sml 15:34:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html Sandy 15:37:21 Jim has left #sml 15:37:37 RRSAgent, leave us 15:37:37 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-actions.rdf : 15:37:37 ACTION: Jim to create a proposal for #4992 [1] 15:37:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-irc#T15-32-35 15:37:37 ACTION: james to create a proposal for #4992 [2] 15:37:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-irc#T15-33-06 15:37:40 johnarwe has left #sml 15:38:10 RRSAgent has joined #sml 15:38:10 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-irc 15:38:12 zeckert has joined #sml 15:38:18 Valentina has joined #sml 15:38:18 pratul has joined #sml 15:38:23 ginny has joined #sml 15:38:26 MSM has left #sml 15:38:29 Jim2 has joined #sml 15:38:45 MSM has joined #sml 15:38:58 scribe: Zulah 15:39:16 scribenick: zeckert 15:39:18 Jim3 has joined #sml 15:39:22 Kumar has joined #sml 15:39:35 rrsagent, generate minutes 15:39:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html zeckert 15:39:51 Marv has joined #sml 15:40:31 a test 15:40:49 John: delete this line it is only a test 15:41:03 rrsagent, generate minutes 15:41:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html zeckert 15:42:59 Topic: #5027 15:44:04 Resolution: this moves to editorial 15:45:08 Topic: #5104 sml 4.2.1 uri scheme 15:45:42 johnarwe: #7 is the only comment that may not be editorial 15:47:35 pratul: last sentence of "New consolidated text" appears to be redundant 15:48:20 johnarwe: if you are going to get rid of one (of the three sentences), keep the second 15:48:39 pratul has joined #sml 15:51:10 Ginny: reword sentence to remove the model author 15:54:30 Pratul: if a URI scheme is used, not every reference in a model has to be that URI scheme 15:56:39 Kumar: doesn't see why we should allow multiple URI schemes to be supported within a model 15:58:49 Kumar: believes that this causes processor behavior to be nondeterministic 15:59:16 Jim2 has joined #sml 16:00:04 Sandy: could have a situation where you use database keys and URIs because you have database items and files in a filesystem 16:00:16 trackbot-ng has joined #sml 16:00:22 Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/sml/ 16:01:24 Action: James to create a proposal for #4992 16:01:30 Created ACTION-138 - Create a proposal for #4992 [on James Lynn - due 2007-10-24]. 16:03:11 Sandy: when you create a reference scheme you have to define how to recognize it and how to deref it. Proposed text doesn't address the former. 16:04:18 Sandy: new consolidated test change "an" in the last sentence to "one and only one" 16:05:54 Ginny: remove second sentence 16:06:01 Ginny: drop last paragraph 16:06:34 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:06:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html Jim 16:08:19 Resolution: move to editorial and for "new consolidated test: (1) reword sentence to remove the model author, (2) remove the second sentence, (3) change "an" in the last sentence to "one and only one", and (4) remove the last paragraph. 16:09:03 Sandy: regarding comment #1the group discussed this and concluded that model documents are allowed to use difference reference schemes in a single model 16:09:27 s/ence/ent/ 16:09:40 s/referent/reference/ 16:09:49 s/difference/different/ 16:10:03 Ginny: do we expect that this will change the spec in any way 16:10:20 Sandy: if we adopt the resolution then this is covered 16:11:18 johnarwe: could the new ammended text be read such that it addresses Kumar's concern? 16:11:38 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:11:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html zeckert 16:12:23 Jim2 has joined #sml 16:13:26 The SML URI Scheme is based on the anyURI type defined in the XML schema specification [XML Schema Datatypes]. More precisely, for each SML reference in the model that is represented using the URI scheme, the reference MUST be represented using an instance of the sml:uri global element declaration as a child of the 16:13:28 reference element. 16:14:23 c/an instance/one and only one/ 16:14:32 s/using an/using one and only one/ 16:15:31 Jim has joined #sml 16:16:43 Topic: #4133 xpath restrictions should be removed 16:17:09 Ginny: thinks that this is taken care of by a bug that has been taken care of 16:17:10 s/4133/5133 16:18:04 RESOLUTION: this is a duplicate of #4636, Ginny will remove this 16:21:01 RESOLUTION: we will make #5133 dependent on #4636 16:21:53 Topic: #4644 Allow assertions on local elements and types 16:26:10 Pratul: this is not a restriction of schematron, but rather of the original SML proposal 16:32:31 MSM: adequate reolution to bug would be inclusion of pointers to design rational 16:33:59 Sandy: assertions are strongs and their meaning may be affected by namespaces 16:36:03 pratul: believes that this needs a proposal 16:36:31 Action: Pratul #4644 will write a proposal 16:36:31 Created ACTION-139 - #4644 will write a proposal [on Pratul Dublish - due 2007-10-24]. 16:37:02 Resolution: moves to needs agreement, action to pratul to create a proposal 16:37:29 s/Resolution/RESOLUTION/ 16:37:48 s/Resolution/RESOLUTION/g 16:38:15 rrsagent. generate minutes 16:38:44 Topic: #4693 Clarify the purpose of applicationUri attribute in Section 5.1 16:39:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html Sandy 16:42:16 Action: John Arwe to determine whether or not Intel wishes to remain a member of the WG and remind them that they have not been participating 16:42:16 Created ACTION-140 - Arwe to determine whether or not Intel wishes to remain a member of the WG and remind them that they have not been participating [on John Arwe - due 2007-10-24]. 16:49:05 Intent is to allow processors or applications that consume the error output to recognize specifically tagged data. 16:49:40 Resolution: move to editorial, reword such that Intent is to allow processors or applications that consume the error output to recognize specifically tagged data. 16:50:18 Topic: #4746 clarify SMLIF section 2 signature requirements 17:01:33 johnarwe: proposal on the table is to remove the text 17:01:49 Pratul: currently this is in the non normative text but uses the word must 17:02:10 Jim: leave in non normative section but not use the word "must" 17:05:15 MSM: it sounds like wording is wrong 17:06:13 Sandy: we may change the document and invalidate all of the signatures - it is possible that we have to change the document 17:07:27 MSM: Assuming that users may want to send signed docs and docs may or may not have to be changed it seems reasonable to provide guidance for how to deal with these situations. MSM proposes that this be moved to NeedsAgreement. 17:07:52 Pratul: Normative or non normative? 17:08:06 MSM: At this point, would like the group to have agreement, clarity 17:09:08 Action: Kumar to provide a proposal for #4746 that includes providing guidance 17:09:08 Created ACTION-141 - Provide a proposal for #4746 that includes providing guidance [on Kumar Pandit - due 2007-10-24]. 17:09:28 RESOLUTION: moved to NeedsAgreement and action to Kumar to create a proposal 17:19:22 Jim has joined #sml 17:23:55 ginny has joined #sml 17:24:04 Topic: #4748 undefined term SMLIF section 2.1 17:24:12 johnarwe: thinks that this is editorial 17:26:24 johnarwe: choose a term for consistency (could be "Schematron Rule documents", "rule documents", or "documents" - then make sure that the term is defined 17:27:01 RESOLUTION: moved to editorial and choose a term for consistency (could be "Schematron Rule documents", "rule documents", or "documents" - then make sure that the term is defined 17:27:31 Topic: #4755 SMLIF section 3.3.6 some fragment URI cases not covered 17:28:08 Ginny: this is 3.4.6 in SML-IF 17:29:18 thinks that 4748 is dependant on 5169 and should be marked as such in bugzilla 17:33:18 trackbot-ng has joined #sml 17:33:23 Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/sml/ 17:42:18 johnarwe: bug is still relevant. Last sentence of 3.4.6. says "the element" but in SML-IF any given fragment could resolve to (1) 0 elements, (2) 1 element, (3) or more elements. And each of these cases needs to be covered. 17:42:20 Ginny: these are IF inter-document reverences 17:42:21 Pratul: IF does not care what you get. A validating consumer may care, but IF doesn't care about the three cases. 17:42:23 johnarwe: proposal is that we don't care about the three cases. But this is not yet a coherent proposal. 17:42:24 Ginny: in the context of SML-IF, would we fix up a fragment? Thinks not and so we don't care about the fragment because we aren't going to resolve it. 17:42:26 Ginny: we could say that we are only concerned with the URI and not the fragment or we could remove the entire section? 17:42:27 Kumar: is there a case where we will have a fragment for a non sml reference? 17:42:29 Ginny: still don't have definition of inter-document references 17:42:30 johnarwe: could make this dependent on the inter-document reference bugs (#5120,#5171, #5181, #5201) because until we know what an inter-document reference is we won't know how to deal with this bug 17:42:32 johnarwe: proposal is to make #4755 dependent on #5120 17:42:33 RESOLUTION: make #4755 dependent on #5120, and mark as needs agreement 17:43:03 Jim has joined #sml 17:50:09 Topic: #4769 Mark model instance documents as root? 17:50:11 Zulah: there was some discussion in the original group 17:50:12 Pratul: by HP 17:50:14 MSM: What would it mean for an instance document to be a root document for the model? Is this well defined? 17:50:15 johnarwe: what is the semantic meaning of saying that something is root? 17:50:17 MSM: hearing two things (1) a root is a place that you might start and this is highly operational or (2) a particular location in a graph and this is structural 17:50:18 Jim: do not mark any documents in the model (won't fix this bug) 17:50:20 Zulah: concerend that HP strongly wanted this pre-proposal but defers to HP's opinion now 17:50:21 RESOLUTION: #4769 will be moved to Won't fix 17:52:10 pratul has joined #sml 17:52:50 Topic: #4770 Decide which schema elements should be changed to global 17:52:51 johnarwe: intent was to allow other things to be reused for example role bindings 17:52:53 johnarwe: has original notes and proposal (done with Bryan Murray) and will take the action item to create proposal 17:52:54 Action: John Arwe will create a proposal for #4770 17:52:54 Created ACTION-142 - Arwe will create a proposal for #4770 [on John Arwe - due 2007-10-24]. 17:52:56 RESOLUTION: Move to needs agreement, John Arwe has an action item to create a proposal 17:59:54 Topic: #4771 add name/id to rule bindings? 17:59:55 johnarwe: this was a question from pre-submission. We have rule bindings we don't have a convenient way in the SML syntax to refer to rule bindings. Perhaps these could be refered to by naming. 17:59:57 Sandy:The schema for schemas has an ID attribute. This is not used when processing instance document. We could do something similar here. 17:59:59 johnarwe: proposes that we do nothing about this. People can put ID attributes on if they want. Because we have no intent to use this for validation why clutter up the spec. So the proposal is Won'tFix. 18:00:00 MSM: and not in the resolution that xml:id exists (or any other qualified attribute). 18:00:02 RESOLUTION: #4771 move to Won'tFix status 18:05:53 Topic: #4772 add keyword substitution in smlerr localized messages? 18:05:55 johnarwe: structured output when Schematron assertions fail to be satisfied. Currently, we allow a localization ID, but we don't allhow keyword values to be substituted into tis strong. There was some pre-submission discussion about allowing this substitution. 18:05:56 Pratul: Schematron has the ability to put values inside error messages. He thinks that there is a proposal from the original group. 18:05:58 Valentina: will speak to Harm as he was the person who proposed this 18:05:59 Action: Valentina to create proposal 18:05:59 Created ACTION-143 - Create proposal [on Valentina Popescu - due 2007-10-24]. 18:06:01 RESOLUTION: move this to NeedsAgreement and assign action to Valentina to create a proposal based on the original groups discussion/proposal 18:27:04 Kumar has joined #sml 18:29:22 Jim has joined #sml 18:42:26 MSM: If you read literature on formal specifications, in a number of places people advise that if you want reliable specs, one of the easiest ways to do that is to write them in two languages. Some organizations due this (e.g., issuing simultaneously in English and French). If you do this one after the other, you find alot of bugs. Given this, he thinks that perhaps we should be working... 18:42:27 Topic: #4776 conflicts between XSD and text - declare which wins 18:42:29 johnarwe: discussion at Toronto F2F. If normative text and normative schema disagree, what do you do. Recollection is that Pratul leaned towards text wins, and MSM had a different position 18:42:30 MSM: Either the group made a clear decision and there is a typo which calls for issuing an errata or there was disagreement 18:42:32 MSM: if the working group has a failure due to disagreement then the group should fix it. Working groups have a certain amount of after life to deal with errors against the spec. 18:42:33 Pratul: Small part of the spec is XSD. Favors normative text. 18:42:35 MSM: This overlap is where there can be a contradiction in the spec. 18:42:37 Zulah: How does the W3C normally deal with this issue? 18:42:39 MSM: No W3C wide policy. Feels that more groups choose formal spec over prose. 18:42:41 Pratul: Modifies his proposal such that in the area where the XSD and the normative spec overlap, given that the schema is more formal, the schema wins. 18:42:44 Jim: doesn't capture case where prose is clear and unambiguous and the XSD is broken. Proposes that you only take this proposal in the case that there are ambiguities in the text. 18:42:47 Zulah: Why does a group have to state how they will deal with issues and deal with them on a case by case basis? 18:42:49 MSM: This is one of the proposals on the table. 18:42:51 Kumar: Feels that the spec if more likely to be correct with respect to what we decided. 18:42:53 johnarwe: feels that we will fond incentive in the choice that we make up front on this issue. 18:42:55 Ginny: thinks that the fact that the prose is what we are working on now might lead us to believe that the spec would ultimately be more correct 18:42:58 ...differently. Specifically that we create the prose and schema concurrently. 18:43:00 MSM: so proposal is to focus more on schema, restructure that part of the document. 18:43:02 Some discussion on what constitutes an errata vs. a spec revision.No specific W3C process/guidance on this. 18:43:04 MSM: in practice, doesn't think that the two interpretations will be differently. That is, the only errata that you will get agreement on is one that changes the text. 18:43:07 johnarwe: effect on user if we don't choose one of these options is that a user will be forced to make a decision during implementation which may change after the group resolves the issue. 18:43:11 We now have four proposals (1) text wins, (2) XSD wins, (3) neither wins, (4) (tie breaker) a mix where something works so that people can continue implementing without waiting for the group and (5) XSD wins, then text wins. 18:43:13 johnarwe: first proposal, do we need a tie breaker? (4) above 18:43:15 we did not have consensus 18:43:17 RESOLUTION: #4776 moves to NeedsAgreement 18:46:02 Kumar: proposes that we discuss this after last call because it is a philosophical discussion 18:46:03 MSM: thinks that if we do this that this might change how people would review the spec 18:46:05 Action: Michael to keep the discussion about #4776 going in email so that eventually we come to some agreement 18:46:05 Created ACTION-144 - Keep the discussion about #4776 going in email so that eventually we come to some agreement [on Michael Sperberg-McQueen - due 2007-10-24]. 18:48:08 RESOLUTION: move to needs agreement and make dependent on #5120 18:54:19 URI-reference is used to denote the most common usage of a resource 18:54:19 identifier. 18:54:19 A URI-reference is either a URI or a relative reference. 18:57:22 Topic: #4788 Change all usages of URI to URI-reference which includes both absolute and relative forms of URIs. 18:57:23 MSM: We should carefully align with 3986 we should review the latest version. Where the RFC defines terms that are what we wanted to say, we should use them, and where this is not the case, we should use other terms. 18:57:25 Sandy's text (above) is from 3986 18:57:26 Sandy: suggests that we change relative URI to relative reference. 18:57:28 johnarwe: points out that where we have fragments we need to use absolute references 18:57:29 RESOLUTION: move to editorial, any changes need review, take the following approach (1) replace URI with URI reference, (2) replace relative URI with relative reference, (3) insert absolute whenever we mean absolute URI. 18:58:29 rrsagent, generate minutes 18:58:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html zeckert 19:01:47 Note, editor should be careful to create a diff document for the changes for this bug and only the changes for this bug! 19:01:49 from IRC - RESOLUTION: move to editorial, any changes need review, take the following approach (1) replace URI with URI reference, (2) replace relative URI with relative reference, (3) insert absolute whenever we mean absolute URI. 19:01:50 If any URI usage is unclear or not covered above, come back to the group (preferably with proposal) to decide correct term. 19:03:34 rrsagent, generate minutes 19:03:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html zeckert 19:13:31 Kumar` has joined #sml 19:23:07 Kumar`` has joined #sml 19:45:48 test 19:46:36 ginny has joined #sml 19:47:18 what you type is /nick Kumar 19:51:09 rrsagent generate minutes 19:51:23 rrsagent, generate minutes 19:51:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html Kumar 19:52:29 scribe: Kumar 19:53:39 pratul has joined #sml 19:54:22 rrsagent, start a new log now 19:54:22 I'm logging. I don't understand 'start a new log now', Kumar. Try /msg RRSAgent help 19:56:56 topic: bug# 4793 19:57:40 ginny: this will be rewritten based on the cycle proposal 19:59:07 agreed editorial 19:59:37 topic: bug# 4811 20:01:33 john: I propose that we should not fix it. we will come back to it if people ask for it. 20:02:46 action: virginia to investigate bug# 4811 and come back with proposal 20:02:46 Created ACTION-145 - Investigate bug# 4811 and come back with proposal [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-10-24]. 20:03:02 4811 needs agreement 20:03:33 topic: bug# 4894 20:07:07 consensus: mark 4894 as dependent on 4639 20:08:24 topic: bug# 4906 20:09:30 sandy: for michale's proposal to work we need xpath 2 20:09:48 msm: explains why this can be done with xpath 1 20:12:48 sandy: xpath requires that a specific set of functions must be supported. if we directly refer to xpath spec it may be confusing since we allow only deref() fn 20:14:39 pratul: since xsd id constraint selector does not allow arbitrary xpath functions, we defined sml selctor this way 20:14:54 Jim has joined #sml 20:15:40 kumar: what is wrong with using BNF? 20:17:17 msm: explains. feels this works better way in the long run. 20:20:39 msm: I propose that we remove BNF, describe the same thing in words. 20:27:57 consensus: won't fix 20:28:26 zeckert has joined #sml 20:28:31 topic: bug# 4976 20:28:56 consensus: this is covered by the Ref proposal. mark editorial. 20:29:56 topic: bug# 4994 20:32:12 msm: this is already covered by our discussion yesterday. level 2 conformance addresses this. 20:34:39 pratul: since this is already addressed, I propose that we should not fix this. 20:38:07 Marv has joined #sml 20:42:01 msm: since we are already thinking of creating 2 levels of sml-if conformance, we may as well add to the level 2 requirement that documentURI be mandatory. 20:42:32 pratul: this may put undue burden on some implementations since they may want to support sml:uri but not documentURI 20:48:31 consensus: mark as needsAgreement 20:50:13 action: michael to create proposal for 4994 20:50:13 Created ACTION-146 - Create proposal for 4994 [on Michael Sperberg-McQueen - due 2007-10-24]. 20:51:19 topic: bug# 4995 20:58:03 Proposal and example for 4995: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Oct/att-0083/Proposal_for_Allowing_smlkeyref.doc 21:03:16 rrsagent, generate minutes 21:03:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html Jim 21:03:55 Jim2 has joined #sml 21:04:17 rrsagent, generate minutes 21:04:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-sml-minutes.html Jim2 21:35:50 Jim has joined #sml 21:41:26 kumar: explains how the end goal of 4995 can be achieved without changing existing spec. 21:41:46 sandy: this is restrictive since it requires one to know the structure of the targetted key constraint element. 21:42:08 kumar: shows how this knowledge is required in the proposal where 'scope' attribute is added. 21:43:10 action: Kumar to add Sandy's original example and the updated example to the bug text 21:43:10 Created ACTION-147 - Add Sandy's original example and the updated example to the bug text [on Kumar Pandit - due 2007-10-24]. 21:45:41 ginny has joined #sml 21:57:31 topic: bug# 5024 21:58:10 consensus: we will add one more example for keyref. The example will be supplied by Sandy. 21:58:23 Jim has joined #sml 22:15:07 ginny has joined #sml 22:19:29 pratul has joined #sml 22:46:49 Kumar has joined #sml 22:47:01 test 22:51:08 sandy: We should not define how a producer should produce sml-if documents. the actual process may be implementation dependent. we should only define how the end-result looks like. 22:58:24 sandy: we do not have to define how de-mangling should be performed at all since we can treat the mangled dtd as applying to all docs. 22:58:57 msm: not comfortable about not defining de-mangling algorithm 23:03:48 msm: defines sml-if as a way to transmit a model as an xml document. 23:16:15 jim: proposes that we do not require a producer to always produce manglged header dtd. a producer may choose to produce standalone documents before creating sml-if. another producer may create the manglged dtd. 23:16:18 johnarwe_ has joined #sml 23:16:33 msm: is not comfortable with the idea. 23:17:58 kumar: what type of info is provided by the dtd 23:19:00 msm: 4 categories of items (listed in his proposal email) 23:28:55 ginny has joined #sml 23:29:50 john: is cosmos implemenation required to support a model with dtds in it? 23:30:12 msm: it should just work since all xml processors will accept it. 23:30:32 john: if it doesn't work for some reason, is cosmos in violation of compliance? 23:33:30 Sandy has joined #sml 23:33:56 msm: if the spec says that sml-if is simply an xml document (without any more qualification) then yes cosmos will be in violation. 23:35:00 MSM has joined #sml 23:44:13 sandy: here is my proposal: 23:44:53 sandy: for producers: (SHOULD or MUST) (normalize to standalone or base64 encode) 23:46:03 sandy: for consumers: 1. if document/data/base64 found => unpack and use as dtd 2. else use same dtd for all instances