IRC log of sml on 2008-04-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:54:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sml
17:54:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:54:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sml
17:55:12 [pratul]
agenda at
17:59:18 [Kirk]
Kirk has joined #sml
17:59:27 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-617
17:59:28 [Zakim]
sorry, MSM, I don't know what conference this is
17:59:35 [MSM]
zakim, this will be sml
17:59:35 [Zakim]
ok, MSM, I see XML_SMLWG()2:00PM already started
17:59:39 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-617
17:59:39 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
17:59:40 [Zakim]
17:59:40 [Zakim]
17:59:40 [Zakim]
17:59:54 [MSM]
zakim, who's here?
17:59:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Julia, MSM
17:59:55 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Kirk, Zakim, RRSAgent, pratul, julia, MSM, trackbot-ng
18:00:25 [Zakim]
18:00:53 [Jordan]
Jordan has joined #sml
18:01:57 [pratul]
pratul has joined #sml
18:02:24 [Zakim]
18:02:36 [Zakim]
18:03:09 [Kumar]
Kumar has joined #sml
18:03:18 [Kirk]
zakim, who's on the phone?
18:03:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Julia, MSM, [Microsoft], [Microsoft.a], Kirk
18:03:19 [Zakim]
18:03:35 [Zakim]
18:03:50 [Zakim]
18:04:59 [Zakim]
18:05:37 [Sandy]
Sandy has joined #sml
18:06:24 [Kumar]
/scribe: Kumar
18:06:30 [Kumar]
/scribenick: Kumar
18:06:36 [Kumar]
/chair: Pratul
18:07:17 [pratul]
Zakim, Microsoft is me
18:07:17 [Zakim]
+pratul; got it
18:07:21 [Kumar]
topic: Approve minutes
18:07:31 [Kumar]
Pratul: any objections to approving the minutes?
18:07:45 [Kumar]
Pratul: no objections heard. Minutes approved.
18:08:43 [Kumar]
topic: News from XML CG
18:08:55 [Kumar]
Pratul: In their 4/21 call, the XML CG approved our F2F meeting in Redmond from 10/28 to 10/30.
18:09:06 [Kumar]
topic: Review the bugs with new comments from Henry Thompson or David Ezell
18:09:14 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5524
18:12:35 [Kumar]
scribe: Kumar
18:12:39 [Kumar]
scribenick: Kumar
18:13:17 [Kumar]
meeting: SML Tele-conference
18:13:24 [Kumar]
chair: Pratul
18:14:19 [Kumar]
msm: The section title 'mapping from schema' is actually correct because 'schema' does not have to mean only schema document.
18:16:32 [MSM]
I propose that I add, as an individual, the following comment to the bug, and then that the WG 'endorse' it (if we choose to).
18:16:32 [MSM]
Strictly speaking, I think the premise that elements and attributes
18:16:33 [MSM]
always originate in schema documents is at fault here. The section on
18:16:33 [MSM]
mapping from schema is talking about the mapping from an annotation
18:16:33 [MSM]
component (NOT an annotation source declaration), the contents of
18:16:34 [MSM]
which are element and attribute information items.
18:16:36 [MSM]
In the usual case, of course, the elements and attributes will have
18:16:38 [MSM]
originated in a schema document, but we wish also to cover the case
18:16:40 [MSM]
that the annotation component was born binary. Even in the latter
18:16:42 [MSM]
case, however, it will contain element and attribute information
18:16:44 [MSM]
18:18:53 [Kumar]
Pratul: does anyone object to endorsing this comment?
18:19:09 [Kumar]
Pratul: no objections heard. I will go ahead and endorse this comment on behalf of the WG.
18:19:51 [julia]
julia has joined #sml
18:20:33 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5543
18:20:49 [julia]
julia has joined #sml
18:21:52 [julia]
julia has joined #sml
18:23:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.480.aaaa
18:23:54 [zulah]
zulah has joined #sml
18:25:40 [Kumar]
msm: explains the procedures involving addressing reviewer's comments.
18:28:14 [Kumar]
msm: I believe we should add bare-name support to SML URI scheme.
18:29:50 [Kumar]
Kumar: Henry's comment does not explain why he thinks our response is FUD. Our response does talk about bare-names which his example shows.
18:33:18 [pratul]
Zakim, who is making noise
18:33:18 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', pratul
18:34:15 [Kumar]
Pratul: explains the key aspects of the WG resolution during f2f.
18:37:17 [MSM]
zakim, who is making noise?
18:37:28 [Zakim]
MSM, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pratul (94%), [Microsoft.a] (39%)
18:39:37 [MSM]
zakim, who is making noise?
18:39:44 [Kumar]
ACTION: Kumar to look at minutes of f2f and summarize the discussion on this issue.
18:39:44 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-181 - Look at minutes of f2f and summarize the discussion on this issue. [on Kumar Pandit - due 2008-05-01].
18:39:49 [Zakim]
MSM, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pratul (39%), [Microsoft.a] (35%), Kirk (9%)
18:39:57 [pratul]
zakim, who is making noise?
18:39:58 [MSM]
zakim, who is making noise?
18:40:11 [Zakim]
pratul, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Julia (23%), pratul (37%), [Microsoft.a] (14%)
18:40:22 [Zakim]
MSM, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pratul (15%), [Microsoft.a] (4%), Kirk (35%)
18:40:47 [Kumar]
zakim, Microsoft.a is me
18:40:47 [Zakim]
+Kumar; got it
18:41:28 [Zakim]
18:41:30 [Kumar]
topic: #5544
18:42:12 [Zakim]
18:45:12 [Kumar]
Kumar: Henry's use of the word 'target' is different from what the SML spec defines. The spec defines target to be an element. In order to find if the target element is present, one must descend in to a document.
18:49:06 [Kumar]
Kumar: Msm's response to 5562 addresses this. One could define a ref scheme that acts as 'XML lens' (converts non-XML target into some XML representation). Such a scheme would allow targetRequired to apply to non-xml documents.
18:53:22 [Kumar]
msm: We should use 'XML lens' idea as an argument here. The XML lens requires a lot of work (both implementation wise and conceptual) therefore may not be of interest to a lot of people. We should instead state that this is a trade-off between complexity and functionality.
18:56:08 [MSM]
s/We should use/We shouldn't use/
18:57:00 [Zakim]
- +1.408.480.aaaa
18:58:16 [MSM]
zakim, who is here?
18:58:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MSM, pratul, Kumar, Kirk, Jordan, Sandy, Julia
18:58:17 [Zakim]
On IRC I see zulah, julia, Sandy, Kumar, pratul, Jordan, Kirk, Zakim, RRSAgent, MSM, trackbot-ng
18:58:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.480.aabb
18:59:28 [Kumar]
Pratul: The WG discussed this and decided to stick to the original resolution. We should add a comment to the bug with a summary of our discussion.
19:00:04 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5545
19:02:24 [MSM]
[I wonder if HT has confused himself a bit -- he says "you don't allow fragids (so you don't support 3986)", but what he means, I think is probably something more like "you don't allow all the fragids defined by the XML RFC, because it says barenames are OK and you don't allow them"]
19:04:27 [Kumar]
Kumar: Henry's comment (bullet 1, comment# 3) is incorrect. He says that "You don't allow fragids". This is not correct because we do allow frag ids.
19:06:13 [Kumar]
s/allow frag ids/allow frag ids encoded as smpxpath1() scheme/
19:07:19 [pratul]
Here's what I plan to enter in the byg
19:08:34 [pratul]
The WG reviewed Comments 3 and 4 and decided that no change is needed since SML does support fragids using smlxpath1() scheme
19:09:15 [MSM]
[I finally located the draft replacement for RFC 3023, but it's expired and the IETF site won't show the text.]
19:10:53 [pratul]
The WG reviewed Comments 3 and 4 and believes that no change is needed since SML does support fragids using smlxpath1() scheme
19:11:30 [Kumar]
resolution: The WG decided to add the comment typed by Pratul as a response to this bug.
19:11:51 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5546
19:18:23 [Kumar]
Kumar: I had noted down some comments on RFC 2557. I will send a summary.
19:18:58 [Kumar]
ACTION: Kumar to send comments on RFC2557/SML-IF comparison and start an email discussion thread.
19:18:59 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-182 - Send comments on RFC2557/SML-IF comparison and start an email discussion thread. [on Kumar Pandit - due 2008-05-01].
19:22:25 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5561
19:23:28 [pratul]
The WG appreciates your flexibility on this issue and expects that the proposed note will facilitate interoperability
19:24:44 [MSM]
perhaps 'interoperability of implementations of the XLink reference scheme'
19:25:23 [Kumar]
Pratul: any objections to adding this comment to the bug as the WG's response?
19:25:33 [Kumar]
Pratul: no objection heard. I will update the bug with this comment.
19:27:22 [MSM]
On 5562, I had an action to draft a response. Draft at
19:27:32 [MSM]
Comments from Kumar and Kirk later in the thread.
19:27:47 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5562
19:31:44 [Kumar]
Kumar: Msm has written an excellent response to this bug.
19:32:00 [Kumar]
msm: Kirk has made useful suggestions regarding the response text.
19:32:18 [Kumar]
Pratul: can you add the response to the bug so that Henry gets to read the response soon?
19:33:05 [Kumar]
resolution: Msm to add the response to the bug. The WG will decide during the next call whether to endorse it as-is or with some updates.
19:33:42 [MSM]
[For the record, I should say I'll revise the response in light of KDW's comments before posting to Bugzilla. Thanks, Kirk!]
19:34:03 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5513
19:36:49 [pratul]
Zakim, who is making noise?
19:37:08 [Zakim]
pratul, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: MSM (48%), pratul (7%)
19:37:39 [pratul]
Zakim, mute MSM
19:37:39 [Zakim]
MSM should now be muted
19:38:23 [MSM]
I think DE updated the wrong bug
19:39:53 [MSM]
I think DE intended to endorse 5541
19:40:26 [MSM]
zakim, unmute me
19:40:26 [Zakim]
MSM should no longer be muted
19:44:57 [Kumar]
Kumar: I do not understand David's response in comment# 10. It appears to aimed at some other bug.
19:45:11 [Kumar]
msm explains the context behind David's comment.
19:45:48 [Kumar]
msm to summarize his understanding of David's comment and paste into IRC.
19:47:16 [MSM]
There may be some confusion here.
19:47:18 [MSM]
Henry's original comment raised, in a single paragraph, two distinct
19:47:20 [MSM]
technical issues. The issue of XLink support is now being tracked as
19:47:22 [MSM]
bug 5561; the issue of schemaless identification of references is now
19:47:24 [MSM]
bug 5541.
19:47:26 [MSM]
We agree with the XML Schema WG's view that it should be possible to
19:47:28 [MSM]
specify sml:ref attributes by adding them, with a default value to the
19:47:30 [MSM]
schema. Further details may be found in bug 5541.
19:51:25 [MSM]
The issue of base URIs is tracked in bug 5542.
19:53:51 [Kumar]
resolution: the comment pasted by msm above is the official response of the WG. Pratul will paste that into the bug.
19:54:02 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5520
19:57:16 [pratul]
Sorry, Comment 1 had some incorrect boilerplate text. The non-normative note is being drafted and we'll update this bug with a link to the note when it is ready
19:57:53 [Kumar]
resolution: The WG decided to add the response typed by Pratul as an interim response to this bug.
19:58:14 [Kumar]
rrsagent, generate minutes
19:58:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Kumar
19:58:16 [Zakim]
19:58:18 [Zakim]
- +1.408.480.aabb
19:58:18 [Zakim]
19:58:20 [Zakim]
19:58:20 [Zakim]
19:58:22 [Kumar]
rrsagent make minutes public
19:58:22 [Zakim]
19:58:27 [Zakim]
19:58:29 [Kumar]
rrsagent, make minutes public
19:58:29 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', Kumar. Try /msg RRSAgent help
19:59:11 [Kumar]
rrsagent, make log public
19:59:17 [Zakim]
19:59:19 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended
19:59:21 [Zakim]
Attendees were Julia, MSM, Kirk, Jordan, Sandy, pratul, +1.408.480.aaaa, Kumar, +1.408.480.aabb
21:56:13 [julia]
julia has left #sml