See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 11 January 2011
<scribe> scribe: Mark
Progress software is no longer a W3C member so Peter will no longer be joining us on this call
Amy: Peter might be able to continue as an "Invited Expert"
Eric: That might be a useful
thing to do - will confer with Yves and ask Peter
... May be meeting the W3C CEO in the near future and will raise that. Will also ask Oracle if they are interested in (re)joining.
... In light of low attendance we may not be able to cover the full agenda
No objections to approving minutes (and no objections to approving in Derek's absence)
Eric: No progress
Mark: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/237 - complete
<trackbot> ACTION-237 Apply the resolution for ISSUE-65 closed
Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/239 - Derek has made progress by raising ISSUE-70
<trackbot> ACTION-239 Raise new issue to clarify requirements around which message types must be supported. closed
Mark: No progress
Phil: No progress
... Still working on trying to get someone involved
Phil: Concerned that an existing implementation which does not support this property will no longer be spec. compliant because it will not look for this property, and so it will not be able to throw the fault
Eric: True, although we asserted that this is not testable, so there will be nothing in the test suite, and existing implementations will not fail the compliance tests
No objection to approving the application
RESOLUTION: The Application of resolution for ISSUE-65 is approved
<trackbot> ISSUE-70 The spec should clearly state that vendors must support both BytesMessage and TextMessage. notes added
Eric: We don't clearly state that
the receiving node must support both Bytes and
... (for req/resp you must be able to send back a response in the same format as the request
No objections to opening the issue
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-70 is opened
Eric: The proposed changed doesn't need to be normative - could just refer to section 220.127.116.11
Mark: Do we need new tests?
Mark: OK we have tests that cover
this (test0002 and test0004)
... After the first sentence here: http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html#binding-message-body
... I approve the proposal as written - to be inserted fter the first sentence in 2.4
Eric: Suggests we resolve as proposed
RESOLUTION: The proposal for ISSUE-70 is approved
action Eric to apply the resolution for ISSUE-70
<trackbot> Created ACTION-240 - Apply the resolution for ISSUE-70 [on Eric Johnson - due 2011-01-18].
Eric: Has feedback from IETF reviewers - will prepare a new draft this week to submit by Friday. Please provide feedback before then.
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) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: mphillip Found Scribe: Mark WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Amy ISSUE-70 Mark Phil See Yves aaaa alewis eric joined mphillip padams soap-jms trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Regrets: Derek Found Date: 11 Jan 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/11-soap-jms-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]