Efficient XML Interchange Working Group Teleconference

29 Mar 2016

See also: IRC log


TK, dape, DP


<taki> scribe: TK

<taki> scribeNick: taki

W3C TPAC 2016

<dape> scribe: dape

<scribe> scribeNick: DP

<dape> scribeNick: dape

<scribe> scribe: DP

TK: ... At most 2 people on the side. Don and Javier showed interest joining remotely
... sometimes very productive to meet even with few people
... one option Carine mentioned is: 1st submit form to meet and later re-consider

DP: if we do not conflict with WoT meetings I expect also some Siemens people have interest

DB: will try to attend by phone
... w.r.t. interest of joining WoT group.. I wonder about the possible relationships that might occur.

<brutzman> We are getting a lot of good work done at a steady pace, even with a small number of people now.

<brutzman> First law of engineering: "if it isn't broken, don't fix it."

DP: No decision yet.. not even formally discussed

<caribou> we can also have a 1 day meeting

<brutzman> Nevertheless we might report back to WoT group once or twice a month, or perhaps have some other informal regular interaction.

<brutzman> That would likely benefit both groups over the long term.

<caribou> or a breakout session if there are in the agenda

TK: this discussion should be raised before TPAC
... could talk about this in Montreal F2F

<brutzman> If someone in EXI can go to WoT TPAC meeting, we might offer a report.

DP: Taki and I are attending the WoT F2F

<brutzman> Dave Raggett and LIam Quinn both are likely to give us good advice in these matters.

DB: Dave has definitely a good advice... also w.r.t. AMP

<brutzman> Our primary goal should likely be to keep making progress, and also to continue outreach so that others might engage and participate.

TK: Can we indicate that we meet at TPAC also indicating avoid conflict with WoT?

DP: I think it makes sense... we don't get an answer about joining WoT the next days

DB: time till 15th of April to decide

<brutzman> Just to be clear about overall strategy - I was not urging that we "join" the WoT group, rather would think that simply commencing a regular dialog would be helpful. Attending another working-group's meeting is always informative.

DB: otherwise we can also organize break-out sessions on Wednesday

DP: having a break-out session on Wednesday makes sense either way to me

<caribou> last year's breakout sessions program: https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2015/SessionIdeas

<caribou> also CGs are invited to have 2-hrs meetings this year

TK: will answer the questionnaire before next telecon
... Note: April 12th there will be no EXI telecon.. (due to WoT F2F)


DP: published first tests on github, https://github.com/EXIficient/exificient-for-css
... also added some test files
... think we should experiment with more test files and add the missing part
... i think having a solution for CSS, JSON and HTML5 makes sense to show during a break-out session at TPAC

TK: plan to experiment

DP: some missing parts like @media
... feel free to send me some test files..

CB: might be able to share some...

DB: is there a CSS test-suite?

<brutzman> Found it: Cascading Style Sheets Official W3C Test Suites https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/Overview.en.html

DP/CB: test files are more unit test files... not really realistic

<brutzman> Unit tests are good for compatibility coverage. It is also possible to aggregate stylesheets into something larger using the @import directive.

Extended String

<brutzman> Interesting link on the CSS Test Suites page: Test the Web Forward, W3C's one stop shop for Open Web Platform testing. http://testthewebforward.org

TK: In your last email about annotation you say "grouping".. not sure what you mean

DP: given that an annotation is linked to a type I wondered whether it makes sense to pre-populete the table for a given type

TK: instead of one global tables many tables?

DP: Correct
... also maybe we want to have the annotation more general w.r.t to other types.. not only enumerations

TK: agree. Enumerations usually don't need pre-populated values

DP: need to agree on syntax
... or put the enumeration syntax in xsd:annotation element

TK: thing in xsd:annotation get not parsed by Xerces

DP: correct

TK: Partitioning by type is a possibility

DP: yes, but I am personally not convinced yet

TK: We could also consider one global table and many smaller tables
... let's continue discussion in emails

DP: plan to run some tests with the extended string across TTFMS test suite

TK: Do not expect any benefit without shared strings

DP: It depends... for example RDF testfiles have lots of URIs and splitting those uris in smaller parts helps a lot to reduce the size

Canonical EXI

TK: Daniel proposed to change the order of AT production selection

<scribe> ... new order makes more sense


DP: same for EXIficient

TK: one other thing is terminology .. d) and e) are AT(*)
... in EXI spec we don't qualify [schema-typed value]
... c) and d) need to be updated with removing [schema-typed value]

DP: Was also wondering whether we should flip b) with c)..

TK: a) and b) next to each other makes more sense... would keep the "new" list as it is

DP: will update the spec...
... think we are complete. I do not have any open point anymore.

TK: currently last call
... consider moving it to CR

CB: last call and CR are the same now

TK: moving to CR is also easier?

CB: re-publishing CR is easier

TK: after the change we should have a final review before moving to CR

DP: How is the timing for interop tests?

CB: it is CR
... moving out of CR requires interoperability

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/03/29 15:32:37 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/relations/relationships that might occur./
Succeeded: s/1day/1 day/
Succeeded: s/fiels/files/
Succeeded: s/DB:/CB:/
Succeeded: s/may/many/
Found Scribe: TK
Found ScribeNick: taki
Found Scribe: dape
Inferring ScribeNick: dape
Found ScribeNick: DP
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <DP> ...
Found ScribeNick: dape
Found Scribe: DP
Scribes: TK, dape, DP
ScribeNicks: taki, dape, DP

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: CB DB DP TK brutzman caribou dape exi joined scribeNick taki trackbot
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 29 Mar 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/03/29-exi-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]