See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 17 March 2009
<scribe> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Mar/0020.html
<scribe> scribe: mphillip
<Roland> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/open
<scribe> No progress on http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/32
Derek: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/64
... Talked about this a few calls ago, actions was to clean up
Derek's recommendation
... to modify statement in 2.2.2; Specify new assertions for
topic replyToName
... and add a new assertion and new test
<Roland> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Mar/0006.html
mphillip: Not sure about the wording "if relevant" - maybe say "if not ignored"
Roland: Perhaps incorporate the
rules into the new assertion
... I will update the spec with this wording - strengthening
the assertion
<scribe> ACTION: Roland to Incorporate Derek's text into spec. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-72 - Incorporate Derek's text into spec. [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-03-24].
close action-64
<trackbot> ACTION-64 Clarify spec about topic replyToName closed
close action-67
<trackbot> ACTION-67 Redraft words re replyTo and topicReplyTO closed
(Action 67 was a duplicate of 64)
Derek: No progress on http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/66
close action-66
<trackbot> ACTION-66 Bring up the additional MEP closed
(Action 68 is a follow up to 66)
Derek: No progress on http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/68
Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/69 note sent to the list with a proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Mar/0019.html
Eric: This is a response to
Harald's comments from a month ago (the IRI draft expires in
May)
... First comment from Harald was that this URI uses only a
local context (e.g. jndi directories inside a firewall),
... Propose an update to URI spec to clarify how a shared
context of appropriate scope must be established
(No objections to wording from attendees)
Eric: Harald's second comment questions the "variant" and whether it will clash with parameters. Because of the limited number of likely variants we do not expect this to be a problem
<Roland> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
Eric: The third comment was on
the inconsistency on "jndi" vs. "jndi-" prefixes for
parameters
... (caused by the difference between well-known and extension
parameters)
... Propose a number of options in the email. Reluctant to
introduce consistency for the sake of it. If people would like
time to digest this, then Eric will postpone the response
Roland: Could send a response based on the first two items
Eric: I will do that
Roland: The names are inconsistent anyway - in some cases we use camel casing, in other cases we use the dotted notation (com.sun.jndi.*)
Derek: When we first discussed we considered using the full term as a prefix "jndiContextParameter-" and then condensed because it was so long
Eric: There is some merit in
having shorter URIs
... On Harald's last comment, I believe the specification it is
better as-is
action Eric to Follow up IRI jndi issue after next week with Harald
<trackbot> Created ACTION-73 - Follow up IRI jndi issue after next week with Harald [on Eric Johnson - due 2009-03-24].
close action-69
<trackbot> ACTION-69 Come up with revised URI scheme pass for review next week closed
<Roland> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/pendingreview
Peter: No progress on http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/71
Roland: Pending Review http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/48
<Roland> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Mar/0005.html
Roland: Don't think we need to define destination in any more detail
Eric: I believe the term destination is sufficient, especially in JMS where Destination is a well established concept
<alewis> +1
mphillip: Agreed
resolution: action-48 No change is necessary to definition of destination
close action-48
<trackbot> ACTION-48 Look at Destination and terms in general in spec perhaps post LC closed
Phil: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/70
revised wording submitted to list
... Latest email
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Mar/0016.html
Eric: Phil's updates clarify the
spec. Suggest a little precision, to identify the
specifications which are mentioned with formal references
... ...and identify specific sections of the RFCs or
specifications where possible
Roland: So we need a new normative reference to RFC2376
Eric: Right, and reference the specific portions of the SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 specifications (like we did for the MEPs)
Phil: The suggested wording did reference particular parts of the SOAP spec.s - will go back and identify the precise references
Eric: Technically the message is
not just a byte stream any more - could be a text message
... May need to keep in the sentence which identifies that If
the message is formatted as "text/xml" or
"application/soap+xml" then the first thing MUST be a
conforming XML document
Roland: Do we have this assertion elsewhere? If so we should just reference it
Eric: I will revise Phil's proposal
Roland: No need for a new action - Eric to propose rewording Phil's action 70
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: mphillip Inferring ScribeNick: mphillip WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Derek Peter Peter_Easton Phil Roland Yves aaaa aacc alewis eric joined mphillip peaston soap-jms trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Regrets: Bhakti Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Mar/0020.html Found Date: 17 Mar 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-soap-jms-minutes.html People with action items: roland WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]