IRC log of sml on 2009-04-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:32:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sml
16:32:45 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/06-sml-irc
16:33:04 [Zakim]
+johnarwe_
16:33:26 [Kumar]
Kumar has joined #sml
16:33:27 [Kirk]
meeting: W3C SML Teleconference
16:33:37 [lencharest]
zakim, aaaa is me
16:33:37 [Zakim]
+lencharest; got it
16:33:38 [Kirk]
agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Apr/0001.html
16:33:56 [Kirk]
scribenick: Kirk
16:34:05 [Kirk]
scribe: Kirk Wilson
16:34:11 [Zakim]
+Sandy
16:34:13 [Kirk]
Chair: John Arwe
16:34:20 [johnarwe_]
Henry emailed regrets (to me only, it appears) for April 6 and 13 (latter being a holiday)
16:34:25 [Zakim]
+kumar
16:34:41 [Kirk]
regrets: Henry
16:35:22 [Kirk]
rrsagent, make log public
16:36:13 [Kirk]
Topic: Approval of minutes from last week
16:36:15 [johnarwe_]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/att-0044/20090330-sml-minutes.html
16:38:22 [Kirk]
Kirk: Requests that line starting with "Whither" be changed to "Should inline references be used with brackets?"
16:38:49 [Kirk]
RESOLUTION: Minutes are approved with the change as requested.
16:39:04 [Kirk]
Topic: GC Group news
16:39:30 [Kirk]
John: Nothing new. Meetings are called for every two weeks.
16:39:38 [Kirk]
TOPIC: Action Items
16:39:51 [Kirk]
John: Action 210
16:40:07 [Kirk]
RESOLUTION: Approval to close action 210 without objections.
16:40:15 [Kirk]
Topic: New bugs
16:40:36 [Kirk]
John: Only open bugs are those dealing with the Tech Notes.
16:40:58 [Kirk]
Topic: Transition to Recommendation
16:41:30 [Kirk]
John: Henry reported that the objector agrees to our proposed wording.
16:41:49 [Kirk]
Sandy: Henry has responded to his questions.
16:42:30 [Kirk]
John: Is there WG agreement to accept the wording as proposed?
16:42:45 [Kirk]
Kumar: Agreement in principle, but would like to see final text.
16:43:32 [johnarwe_]
Henry's email w/ proposed text, for Kumar: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Apr/0002.html
16:44:01 [johnarwe_]
revision discussed last week http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/att-0044/20090330-sml-minutes.html#item06
16:46:10 [johnarwe_]
The merged version would be:
16:47:29 [Kirk]
Kumar: Objection to use of "may": all versions become optional.
16:48:00 [Kirk]
Len: Suggests: "must support 4th ed and may support subsequent edtions"
16:48:08 [johnarwe_]
Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Edition), T. Bray, J. Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, and E. Maler, Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 10 February 1998, revised 16 August 2006. This edition of the XML 1.0 Recommendation (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816) was the one current at the time this document went to Candidate Recommendation. The latest version of XML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/. Implementations may follow
16:48:55 [johnarwe_]
(some clients truncated that, so "once again")
16:49:09 [johnarwe_]
1st sentence: Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Edition), T. Bray, J. Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, and E. Maler, Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 10 February 1998, revised 16 August 2006. This edition of the XML 1.0 Recommendation (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816) was the one current at the time this document went to Candidate Recommendation.
16:49:19 [johnarwe_]
2nd sentence: The latest version of XML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/. Implementations may follow the edition cited or any later edition(s); it is implementation-defined which edition(s) are supported by the implementation".
16:49:48 [johnarwe_]
Kumar's and Len's comments above have not bee applied to that text; it is simply what we discussed last week, merged.
16:50:05 [Kirk]
s/bee/been
16:50:52 [Kirk]
Sandy: I think it is OK, but wants to get Henry to look at this.
16:51:03 [Kirk]
John: Agrees that Henry should look at this.
16:53:20 [Kumar]
suggested text: Implementations must support the edition cited and may support any later edition(s); it is implementation-defined which edition(s) other than the fourth edition are supported by the implementation".
16:55:46 [ginny]
ginny has joined #sml
16:56:29 [Kumar]
We want all implementations to support the fourth edition so that we can have interoperability even when some implementations additionally support other editions. If we do not require support for the fourth edition then we may lose interop. For example, between an implementation that supports fourth edition and the one that supports only the fifth edition because the fifth edition is not backward compatible with the fourth edition.
16:57:43 [Zakim]
+Ginny_Smith
16:58:24 [Kirk]
John; Concern that that "must" might place burden on feature versions to support 4th edition.
16:58:43 [Kirk]
...Response might be that we can correct this in future versions of SML.
17:01:56 [Kumar]
suggested text: Implementations must support the edition cited and may support any later edition(s); it is implementation-defined which edition(s) other than the fourth edition are supported by the implementation".
17:02:02 [Zakim]
-Sandy
17:02:09 [Kirk]
Kumar: This is like our statement that implementations must support XML Schema 1.0; but may support future version. This is necessary for interop.
17:04:30 [Kirk]
Ginny: If an implementation support 5th edition, it supports 4th edition.
17:05:25 [Kirk]
Discussion: Henry answered that question "Yes" last week.
17:05:58 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
17:07:07 [Kirk]
Ginny: We don't want to make a totaly blanket statement that would cover future editions that may be incompatible with current editions.
17:11:02 [Kirk]
Ginny: Agrees that we should require XML 4.0 compliance.
17:11:39 [johnarwe_]
for clarity, by "4.0" the spec commonly referred to as "XML 1.0 4th edition" is meant
17:11:39 [Kirk]
John: We require XML compliance for both processors and documents.
17:12:19 [Kirk]
...Documents must conform to XML 4.0.
17:12:40 [Kirk]
s/4.0/4th edition
17:12:55 [Kirk]
s/4.0/4th edition
17:13:50 [Kirk]
John: Reviewing text- We cover what objector said for validators, but not for documents.
17:14:05 [Kirk]
...We could have responded that we already addressed th
17:14:06 [Kirk]
...We could have responded that we already addressed th
17:14:21 [Kirk]
s/th/the issue
17:14:57 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
17:15:44 [Kirk]
Ginny: The general statement is that we support XML 1.0. Reference makes it mean XML 1.0 4th edition
17:16:59 [Kirk]
...We need to fix the document. Compliance statement would exclude 5th edition for documents.
17:18:11 [Kirk]
Kumar: Does "version" include "edition"?
17:19:27 [Kirk]
Ginny: How do we include the text for document conformance without making it a substantive change?
17:20:56 [Kirk]
Kumar: Changing the reference should be sufficient. Conformance is according to this reference. The reference specifies 4th edition/"may" 5th edition.
17:22:46 [Kirk]
John: Kumar's approach gets the XML resolved. Does it solve XML Schema / Path? Not clear that we have XML Schema/Path covered.
17:23:23 [Kirk]
...We might need to add the same kind of text of conforming documents for these as well.
17:25:34 [Kirk]
Ginny: Confirms that we have the same kinds of requirements around XML Schema, Schematron, and XPath.
17:25:57 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
17:26:00 [Kirk]
...and XPointer, etc. etc. Yikes!
17:27:21 [Kirk]
Kumar: We could just take the position with the objector that since we reference the "latest version" (edition) we implicitly say the latest version is allowed.
17:28:57 [Kumar]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#normative-references
17:30:37 [Kirk]
Kumar: XML Schema 1.0 references XML 2nd edition.
17:30:55 [Kumar]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#normative-references
17:31:35 [Kirk]
John: We discussed this MSM, who might said that XML Schema did not do this "optimally."
17:35:58 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
17:36:51 [Kirk]
John: Will look at the latest version of XML Schema 1.1, and will talk to Henry.
17:38:16 [Kumar]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-emma-20090210/
17:40:19 [Zakim]
-lencharest
17:42:26 [Kirk]
Ginny: We might express the relationships to future version as "intentions". Not sufficient to just quote "latest version".
17:42:31 [Zakim]
-kumar
17:43:03 [Kirk]
John: We will start email thread with Henry.
17:43:50 [Zakim]
-Kirk
17:43:51 [Zakim]
-Ginny_Smith
17:43:51 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()12:30PM has ended
17:43:52 [Zakim]
Attendees were Kirk, +1.425.896.aaaa, johnarwe_, lencharest, Sandy, kumar, Ginny_Smith
17:44:15 [Kirk]
Kirk: Expresses regrets for the 20th; he needs to go over EPR note because of his schedule.
17:44:28 [Kirk]
ADJOURN: 1:44 ET
17:44:42 [Kirk]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:44:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/06-sml-minutes.html Kirk
19:11:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sml