See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribenick: Kirk
<scribe> scribe: Kirk Wilson
<johnarwe_> Henry emailed regrets (to me only, it appears) for April 6 and 13 (latter being a holiday)
<johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/att-0044/20090330-sml-minutes.html
Kirk: Requests that line starting with "Whither" be changed to "Should inline references be used with brackets?"
RESOLUTION: Minutes are approved with the change as requested.
John: Nothing new. Meetings are called for every two weeks.
John: Action 210
RESOLUTION: Approval to close action 210 without objections.
John: Only open bugs are those dealing with the Tech Notes.
John: Henry reported that the objector agrees to our proposed wording.
Sandy: Henry has responded to his questions.
John: Is there WG agreement to accept the wording as proposed?
Kumar: Agreement in principle, but would like to see final text.
<johnarwe_> Henry's email w/ proposed text, for Kumar: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Apr/0002.html
<johnarwe_> revision discussed last week http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/att-0044/20090330-sml-minutes.html#item06
<johnarwe_> The merged version would be:
Kumar: Objection to use of "may": all versions become optional.
Len: Suggests: "must support 4th ed and may support subsequent edtions"
<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
<johnarwe_> (some clients truncated that, so "once again")
<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.
<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".
<johnarwe_> Kumar's and Len's comments above have not been applied to that text; it is simply what we discussed last week, merged.
Sandy: I think it is OK, but wants to get Henry to look at this.
John: Agrees that Henry should look at this.
<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".
<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.
John; Concern that that "must" might place burden on feature versions to support 4th edition.
scribe: Response might be that we can correct this in future versions of SML.
<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".
Kumar: This is like our statement that implementations must support XML Schema 1.0; but may support future version. This is necessary for interop.
Ginny: If an implementation support 5th edition, it supports 4th edition.
Discussion: Henry answered that question "Yes" last week.
Ginny: We don't want to make a
totaly blanket statement that would cover future editions that
may be incompatible with current editions.
... Agrees that we should require XML 4.0 compliance.
<johnarwe_> for clarity, by "4th edition" the spec commonly referred to as "XML 1.0 4th edition" is meant
John: We require XML compliance
for both processors and documents.
... Documents must conform to XML 4th edition.
... Reviewing text- We cover what objector said for validators,
but not for documents.
... We could have responded that we already addressed th
... We could have responded that we already addressed the
issue
Ginny: The general statement is
that we support XML 1.0. Reference makes it mean XML 1.0 4th
edition
... We need to fix the document. Compliance statement would
exclude 5th edition for documents.
Kumar: Does "version" include "edition"?
Ginny: How do we include the text for document conformance without making it a substantive change?
Kumar: Changing the reference should be sufficient. Conformance is according to this reference. The reference specifies 4th edition/"may" 5th edition.
John: Kumar's approach gets the
XML resolved. Does it solve XML Schema / Path? Not clear that
we have XML Schema/Path covered.
... We might need to add the same kind of text of conforming
documents for these as well.
Ginny: Confirms that we have the
same kinds of requirements around XML Schema, Schematron, and
XPath.
... and XPointer, etc. etc. Yikes!
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.
<Kumar> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#normative-references
Kumar: XML Schema 1.0 references XML 2nd edition.
<Kumar> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#normative-references
John: We discussed this MSM, who
might said that XML Schema did not do this "optimally."
... Will look at the latest version of XML Schema 1.1, and will
talk to Henry.
<Kumar> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-emma-20090210/
Ginny: We might express the relationships to future version as "intentions". Not sufficient to just quote "latest version".
John: We will start email thread with Henry.
Kirk: Expresses regrets for the 20th; he needs to go over EPR note because of his schedule.
ADJOURN: 1:44 ET
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/bee/been/ Succeeded: s/4.0/4th edition/ Succeeded: s/4.0/4th edition/ Succeeded: s/th/the issue/ Found ScribeNick: Kirk Found Scribe: Kirk Wilson Default Present: Kirk, +1.425.896.aaaa, johnarwe_, lencharest, Sandy, kumar, Ginny_Smith Present: Kirk +1.425.896.aaaa johnarwe_ lencharest Sandy kumar Ginny_Smith Regrets: Henry Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Apr/0001.html Got date from IRC log name: 06 Apr 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/04/06-sml-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]