The W3C XML Protocol WG held a teleconference on 18 October 2000. The meeting began at 8:00a PDT. AGENDA 1. Roll call, assign scribe (10 minutes) David Fallside called roll. 2. Agenda review (5 minutes) Nothing added 3. Approval of minutes from f2f, see [1] (5 minutes) David F mentioned that minor changes, adding URLs, adding scribes,date, and location have already been mentioned and would be made. David Orchard said he had some small editorial changes, these will be discussed in the list by email before being committed. 4. How to handle public list? (10 minutes) (actually took 20+ minutes) David F raised the issue by stating that the charter states that work should be in public, however we've been conspiculously silent on the public list. Some kind of communication is needed for the public list to let the world know that we are working. Discussion followed including suggestions that we put out a summary of the f2f and our current state of working through raw req't data. Noah pointed out the need to be polite when we deal with the public list, both in describing what the working group has accomplished and when and how the public can best participate in the discussion. Paul Cotton and Dave Orchard suggested providing a moderator or facilitator to channel the public discussion into conversations that will help the member group. The feeling is that the current public list discussion is unfocused and too general. The public/private distinction is problematic. ACTION: David F suggested not putting current requirements list out, but soliciting a moderator for public list - who will send msg to the public group regarding member group work and public group participation. Chair needs to recruit this position from working group 5. XP Requirements (25 minutes) (spent more like 20 minutes on this) -- status report from editors (henrik and alex): Henrik has done preliminary organization. Alex is adding issues and will put something out on the member list later today. Henrik: we took all items and matched to sections of charter; only 2 handfuls fell outside of charter categories. Next step is to prune the list. Alex (or was it Henrik?) talked about classifying the req'ts into the following 4 groups. in-scope out-of-scope issues glossary Other potential groupings include protocol binding, rpc, env, serialization. -- how we proceed David F proposed the following process: We need (1) discussion on each req't (2) final proposed version written (3) disposition on each by the member group Divide the requirements into the following groups: general simplicity encapsulation/evolvability intermediaries data representation Appoint a spokesperson for each group responsible for bringing forward the req'ts and issues in each group for disposition. Work in each subgroup will need to be carried out by email, possibly with telcons (w3c support possible) a suggestion was made to use simple prefixes for each subgroup that can be used in email subject lines (in addition to req't number) to facilitate the email discussion. Membership in a grouping is a self selecting process. Henrick asked if this work includes use cases. The answer is that use cases come after this initial work. David F noted that 2nd internal draft scheduled for Oct 30th.And to have all req'ts nailed down by next week is aggressive. ACTION ITEM: some fraction of req'ts in each group must be ready for discussion at next week's telcon. Group leaders were solicited and will be indicated when the preliminary req'ts document is posted to the memberlist. -- collection of additional requirements new req'ts need to be put onto the member list; each subgroup may decide that new req'ts are duplicates. new req'ts need to be on the list by the end of this week 7. Any other business (5 minutes) Question from ??: What is the relation of the new XMSG submission [2] to the WG's work? Chair answers: It will be input for this working group. 1. Chair notes Intel will host telcons for forseeable future, but passcode for each telcon will be different. The WG member page will contain a list of the upcoming telcons with passcodes; telephone number remains the same. 2. Chair notes that part of our reqt's discussion may suggest need for other WGs under the XP Activity. ACTION: Chair will ascertain W3C thinking on formation of such WGs, by next week. [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/Admin/minutes-oct1100/minutes.html [2] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2000/07/