16:34:02 RRSAgent has joined #sml 16:34:02 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/23-sml-irc 16:34:08 Kumar has joined #sml 16:34:09 zakim, who is here 16:34:09 lencharest, you need to end that query with '?' 16:34:19 zakim, who is here? 16:34:19 sorry, lencharest, I don't know what conference this is 16:34:20 On IRC I see Kumar, RRSAgent, Zakim, Kirk, lencharest, Sandy, trackbot 16:34:27 ginny has joined #sml 16:34:31 zakim, this is sml 16:34:31 ok, lencharest; that matches XML_SMLWG()12:30PM 16:36:25 scribe: Kumar Pandit 16:36:29 scribenick: Kumar 16:36:41 +Ginny_Smith 16:36:46 meeting: SML WG Conf Call 16:37:15 chair: John 16:39:57 topic: Approval of minutes from previous meeting(s) 16:40:03 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/att-0020/20090316-sml-minutes.html 16:40:30 john: no objections to approving the minutes. 16:40:47 RESOLUTION: the minutes of 3/16 are approved. 16:41:06 topic: from the CG 16:41:18 john: nothing new. 16:41:28 topic: Action items 16:43:33 ginny_ has joined #sml 16:43:46 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 topic: Rec track documents 16:49:12 john: We need to determine the effect on implementations of having to support xml 1.0 fifth edition. 16:51:33 ginny_ has joined #sml 16:51:41 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 +Sandy 16:54:48 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 sandy: I wanted to ask Henry about a paradox related to xml fifth edition. 16:59:51 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 sandy: the above may also affect how we (SML WG) deal with the xml 5th edition issue. 17:01:14 -Sandy 17:01:15 -Ginny_Smith 17:01:33 ginny_ has joined #sml 17:02:50 rrsagent, make log public 17:03:04 rrsagent, generate minutes 17:03:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/23-sml-minutes.html Kumar 17:05:40 topic: Review EPR and XLink Notes 17:09:03 ...discussion on bug# 5561 comment# 13 from ginny. 17:11:59 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 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 ...discussion on bug# 5561 comment# 14 from Kirk. 17:26:35 ...john and Len discuss about the sentence "an SML reference that is an instance of the XLink ref scheme". 17:31:26 rrsagent, generate minutes 17:31:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/23-sml-minutes.html Kumar 17:31:30 -[Microsoft] 17:31:33 - +1.845.235.aaaa 17:31:34 -Kirk 17:31:35 - +1.425.836.aabb 17:31:36 XML_SMLWG()12:30PM has ended 17:31:37 Attendees were +1.845.235.aaaa, Kirk, [Microsoft], +1.425.836.aabb, Ginny_Smith, Sandy 17:31:47 zakim, [Microsoft] is me 17:31:47 sorry, lencharest, I do not recognize a party named '[Microsoft]' 17:31:57 rrsagent, make log public 17:45:23 lencharest has joined #sml 17:45:43 lencharest has left #sml 19:33:52 Zakim has left #sml