IRC log of sml on 2009-03-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:34:02 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sml
16:34:02 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:34:08 [Kumar]
Kumar has joined #sml
16:34:09 [lencharest]
zakim, who is here
16:34:09 [Zakim]
lencharest, you need to end that query with '?'
16:34:19 [lencharest]
zakim, who is here?
16:34:19 [Zakim]
sorry, lencharest, I don't know what conference this is
16:34:20 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Kumar, RRSAgent, Zakim, Kirk, lencharest, Sandy, trackbot
16:34:27 [ginny]
ginny has joined #sml
16:34:31 [lencharest]
zakim, this is sml
16:34:31 [Zakim]
ok, lencharest; that matches XML_SMLWG()12:30PM
16:36:25 [Kumar]
scribe: Kumar Pandit
16:36:29 [Kumar]
scribenick: Kumar
16:36:41 [Zakim]
16:36:46 [Kumar]
meeting: SML WG Conf Call
16:37:15 [Kumar]
chair: John
16:39:57 [Kumar]
topic: Approval of minutes from previous meeting(s)
16:40:03 [lencharest]
16:40:30 [Kumar]
john: no objections to approving the minutes.
16:40:47 [Kumar]
RESOLUTION: the minutes of 3/16 are approved.
16:41:06 [Kumar]
topic: from the CG
16:41:18 [Kumar]
john: nothing new.
16:41:28 [Kumar]
topic: Action items
16:43:33 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
16:43:46 [Kumar]
john: it seems that not everyone has reviewed the namespace document. Since Henry himself is not here, we will give one more week to the group to review the document.
16:45:05 [Kumar]
topic: Rec track documents
16:49:12 [Kumar]
john: We need to determine the effect on implementations of having to support xml 1.0 fifth edition.
16:51:33 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
16:51:41 [Kumar]
kumar: I do not yet have the information about whether Microsoft's .net xml processor supports the fifth edition. I will have that info by the next week.
16:52:30 [Zakim]
16:54:48 [Kumar]
john: We could try the floor-ceiling approach (floor == 4th edition), but there is a possibility that we may have to go back to LC if the director so decides.
16:58:03 [Kumar]
sandy: I wanted to ask Henry about a paradox related to xml fifth edition.
16:59:51 [Kumar]
sandy: question to Henry: The xml spec has a new edition (5th) that allows new characters in some productions (eg, NCNAME). However, the namespace spec has not undergone a similar revision, therefore the new characters would be invalid according to the namespace spec. How should processors behave in this case?
17:00:45 [Kumar]
sandy: the above may also affect how we (SML WG) deal with the xml 5th edition issue.
17:01:14 [Zakim]
17:01:15 [Zakim]
17:01:33 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
17:02:50 [Kumar]
rrsagent, make log public
17:03:04 [Kumar]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:03:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Kumar
17:05:40 [Kumar]
topic: Review EPR and XLink Notes
17:09:03 [Kumar]
...discussion on bug# 5561 comment# 13 from ginny.
17:11:59 [Kumar]
john: I would like the editors to reach consensus on the () / [] style issue. The group should discuss it only if the editors cannot reach a consensus.
17:15:54 [Kumar]
john: I don't have the full context about ginny's disagreements as noted in comment# 13. I will talk about it in the next call.
17:16:09 [Kumar]
...discussion on bug# 5561 comment# 14 from Kirk.
17:26:35 [Kumar]
...john and Len discuss about the sentence "an SML reference that is an instance of the XLink ref scheme".
17:31:26 [Kumar]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:31:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Kumar
17:31:30 [Zakim]
17:31:33 [Zakim]
- +1.845.235.aaaa
17:31:34 [Zakim]
17:31:35 [Zakim]
- +1.425.836.aabb
17:31:36 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()12:30PM has ended
17:31:37 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.845.235.aaaa, Kirk, [Microsoft], +1.425.836.aabb, Ginny_Smith, Sandy
17:31:47 [lencharest]
zakim, [Microsoft] is me
17:31:47 [Zakim]
sorry, lencharest, I do not recognize a party named '[Microsoft]'
17:31:57 [Kumar]
rrsagent, make log public
17:45:23 [lencharest]
lencharest has joined #sml
17:45:43 [lencharest]
lencharest has left #sml
19:33:52 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sml