See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 01 September 2009
<Bob> scribe: Vikas Varma
<Bob> scribenick: Vikas
<Bob> Resolution: Minutes of 2009-08-25 approved w/o
<dug> the term "normal company" could be hard to define
<Vikas1> Bob, can you mark Vikas1 as scribe.
<Bob> scribenick: Vikas1
Dug/Ram : Going through internal review
Dog/Ram : Will try to put the proposal before next call.
<dug> 129.33.49.251
<Bob> scribenick: Vikas2
<Bob> resolution: Open 7429 w/o
<Bob> resolution: issue-7429 resolved with proposal in bugzilla w/o
<Yves> dug, hsould be ok now
<dug> yep - works thanks!
<Bob> resolution Issue-7430 opened w/o
<Bob> resolution: Issue 7430 resolved with proposal in bugzilla
<Bob> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7478
<Bob> scribenick: Vikas
yes Bob
resolution: Issue-7478 opened w/o.
<asir> when do we stop opening issues :-)
<dug> yves - failing again
<scribe> ACTION: Gilbert to provide proposal on 7478 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-99 - Provide proposal on 7478 [on Gilbert Pilz - due 2009-09-08].
<dug> Yves - IP is: 129.33.49.251
<dug> yves - working again - thanks
Ram: Is it necessary to define a seperate mine-type.
<Bob> asir
<dug> what does that involve?
<dug> (the process)
<Bob> application
Bob: Is there any objection to define a new mime-type?
<Ashok> I understand that getting a new mime type is a long drawn-out process
Gil: Suggest to drive it as a seperate issue.
<dug> thanks
<asir> Good!
RESOLUTION: No objection on the latest proposal. resolved with comment 12.
<li> you're welcome
<Bob> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6694
<Ram> Proposed resolution for 6694: "An endpoint MAY indicate that it supports WS-Eventing, or its features, by including the WS-Eventing Policy assertion(s) within its WSDL. By doing so the endpoint is indicating that the corresponding WS-Eventing operations are supported by that endpoint even they do not explicitly appear in its WSDL”.
<dug> ram - s/even/even though/ right?
<asir> Vow, two big issues out of the way!!
<asir> quite a day!
No objection on the latest proposal. 6694 resolved with comment 7 and 8.
<dug> he's just hiding
<DaveS> What issue number are we talking about?
<Ashok> 6700
<Bob> Issue 6700 et alia
<li> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/0064.html
<dug> This specification is defined in terms of XML 1.0. A mapping from XML to Infoset is straightforward as described below, and it is recommended that this should be used for any non-XML serializations.
<dug> This specification is defined in terms of XML 1.0. A mapping from XML to Infoset is straightforward as described in the Infoset specification [http:...], and it is recommended that this should be used for any non-XML serializations. See the Infoset specification for more details.
<Bob> proposal for resolution of 6700, 6701, 6702,6703, and 6704
<Ram> Amended proposal: This specification is defined in terms of XML 1.0. A mapping from XML to Infoset is straightforward as described in the Infoset specification [http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/], and it is recommended that this should be used for any non-XML serializations.
<li> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Sep/0003.html
<dug> Ram - add the final sentence (para)
<Ashok> Yves, are you ok with Ram's wording?
<Ram> Doug - I got rid of the last para and merged it into the first para. That is, the ref to Infoset spec is in this first para.
<Yves> not really, it is important to say that the spec is defined in terms on Infoset and not XML1.0
<dug> ok - as long as people don't want the "see XXX for more details"
<dug> guess its just noise
<Ashok> Yes, that's what I thought ... on second thought I agree with that
<Yves> see http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#reltoxml and http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapenv
<Yves> [[A SOAP message is specified as an XML infoset whose comment, element, attribute, namespace and character information items are able to be serialized as XML 1.0.]]
<Yves> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/0064.html, if we add a sentence saying that valid infosets for this specification are ones serializable using XML 1.0 should be enough
<li> yves, that link is broken
<Bob> ashok
<Ram> Amended proposal: This specification is defined in terms of XML 1.0. A mapping from XML to Infoset is straightforward as described in the Infoset specification [http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/], and it is recommended that this should be used for any non-XML serializations. Valid infosets for this specification are ones serializable using XML 1.0.
<Yves> well, that prevents in a way serialization of an infoset into something else, better say that it's an infoset and restricted to serialization in XML1.0
<Yves> proposal: This specification is defined in terms of XML Information Set (Infoset)
<Yves> , even though the specification uses XML 1.0
<Yves> terminology.
<Yves> Valid Infoset for this specification are the one serializable in XML 1.0, hence the use of XML 1.0.
<Ram> Minor amendment to Yves's proposal: This specification is defined in terms of XML Information Set (Infoset) [http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/], even though the specification uses XML 1.0 terminology. Valid Infoset for this specification are the one serializable in XML 1.0, hence the use of XML 1.0.
<asir> This sounds like the min to close all our infoset issues
<asir> I think the third para is already represented in the above proposal
<asir> Would Doug be okay if we were to say ...
<asir> This spec can be used in terms of ....
<Bob> despite all appearances, this spec is defined (somewhere in a non-disclosed location) in Infoset Notation
<asir> ..
<asir> This specification can be used in terms of XML Information Set (Infoset) [http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/], even though the specification uses XML 1.0 terminology. Valid Infoset for this specification are the one serializable in XML 1.0, hence the use of XML 1.0.
<asir> :-)
<asir> Vow .. we closed 8 issues today.
<asir> i stand corrected 10 issues
<DaveS> Can we go home erly?
<dug> end on a high note?
<Bob> cwna for 6424
<li> and i didn't even say a word
<asir> vow .. that is 11
<dug> sure
RESOLUTION: No
objection on the latest proposal put forward in the chat room
for 6700, 6701, 6702, 6703, and 6704.
... 6424 closed with no action.
<Yves> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/0082.html
<scribe> Topic : Issue 6533
<asir> Standalone makes sense
<DaveS> +1 to standalone
<asir> Where will we add this para?
<dug> I'm assuming that the non-Get ops in Transfer are non-safe so a ref to (b) should be added - the proposal doesn't actually say that.
<asir> that's a dozen
<asir> do you want to try a bakers dozen?
<DaveS> bye
<Bob> resolution: Issue-6533 resolved with the proposal contained in comment #4 and comment # 6
<Bob> rsagent, generate minutes
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/6401// Succeeded: s/6401// Found Scribe: Vikas Varma WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Vikas\ Varma> ... Found ScribeNick: Vikas WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Vikas> ... Found ScribeNick: Vikas1 Found ScribeNick: Vikas2 WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Vikas2> ... Found ScribeNick: Vikas ScribeNicks: Vikas, Vikas1, Vikas2 WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Ashok Ashok_Malhotra Bob Bob_Freund DaveS Gil IBM Igor_Sedukhin Microsoft P9 Paul Ram Sreed Tom_Rutt Tom_Rutt_ Vikas Vikas1 Vikas2 Yves asir dug gpilz jeffm joined li proposal scribenick trackbot ws-ra You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/0087.html Found Date: 01 Sep 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-ws-ra-minutes.html People with action items: gilbert WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]