W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 05 December 2001

Minutes of XML Protocol Working Group telcon, 5th December 2001.

1. Roll call

Present 32/29 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda Review

No AOB items.

3. Review of F2F minutes

Rough minutes only available at this time - review postponed until next
week.

4. Review of Action Items

-- Regarding XMLP's plan to skip CR. This is OK provided we make it clear
that we plan to do this by putting appropriate text in the status section
of the last call WDs.

5. Status reports (12.35 + 10)


-- Primer
NM: Revised draft sent out last night. F2F comments included. In the future
it should have more material to explain TBTF. The Primer is fairly well
aligned with the specs.
DF: Any more edits to do?
NM: No, perhaps just spelling etc.
DF: (to WG) looks like that text is what we are going to submit to W3C so
if you have comments get them in soon. Thanks to Nilo for his hard work.

-- Spec
HR: JJM has included most of TBTF work. Still one section to include. Most
of Noah's 101 text is included.
Marc: 144 resolution is not done. Maybe omit its resolution until after the
upcoming WD.
DF: The sense of the f2f publishing decision is that omitting 144
resolution would not break our decision to publish. (Asks WG for
confirmation.)
WG: No objection raised.
DF: What about new URI section discussion ?
MH, HFN: We (as the discussants) have reached consensus on new text.
DF: Can someone send an email with new URI section text ?
HFN: I will do that.
DF: Many people are having trouble viewing XML versions of the WD ed
copies. What is the situation?
Marc: Part 2 of the spec is in flux, JJM didn't manage to get all changes
done in time for tonight, and the HTML copy is not ready yet.

-- TBTF
GD: Comments made about the tone and style of the "Conventions" document
will be incorporated in the next couple of days.
Marc: Can any edits be done as redlines to allow editors to spot changes
easily.
NM was given confirmation by the editors that GD's "4 pieces" email from
this week contains the base text that should be redlined.

-- ETF
Con call tomorrow.

-- Conformance work
HH: Still trying to get formal approval from MSFT to use soapbuilder tests.
MSFT is planning a SOAP conformance "party" in conjunction with
SOAPBuilders in mid-January. XMLP should think about attending, we should
be receiving an invite.

-- Usage Scenarios
DF: Status is same as primer. JohnI to add another scenario but nothing
else just formatting work.

-- Requirements Doc
HFN: sent out proposed text for R309 ? no comments so far. What to do with
its glossary, section on other terms (currently empty) and usage scenarios.
HFN suggests they are removed.  Having 2 glossaries might confuse users.
Same for usage scenarios.
DF: Pub of requirements is after spec WD so we have time to consider these
issues after publication of the WD.

6. Volunteer(s) sought for composing (a late) XMLP response to the Last

Calls on XML Encryption [23] and Exclusive Canonical XML [24] (12.45 + 5)

DF: XML Encryption WG asked us to review the above docs. I dropped the ball
at XML Encryption's Last Call by failing to ask the WG for a volunteer to
review the docs.
DO: I volunteered last time there was a Last Call. I sent in the comment
that I didn't understand the applicability of their solution. Not sure if I
am correct person to be the liason.
DF: Thinks DO is perfect person to be the liason. Asks DO if he is willing
to help.
DO: OK but would like help.
PD and YLH volunteer
DF: Asks volunteers to contact DO.
DO & volunteers agree to provide XMLP WG with a draft response for XML
Encryption by noon PST next week.
HH, DO, DF determine that all XML Encryption docs are public so any XMLP
discussion on the subject can take place on xml-dist-app.

7. Discussion of TBF revisions to "raw materials" [3,4,5,6] per "Pubs and

Reviews" email [7]

DF: Glen put out new versions of these "old" texts. Is there any discussion
?
NM: Suggests we go ahead and use these texts with some editorial changes.
Suggests we don't accept these texts as final status quo, and we should
plan more rounds of editing after the WD is published.
RajN: Is there an end-to-end feature spec instead of point-to-point.
NM: A feature can be anything you want. A feature spec can say each node in
a message path must do certain things. So an end-to-end feature is
possible. We might say that feature specs need to specify what happens at
an
intermediary, but I don't think we need to change how we describe features.
DF: Do you have a proposed edit ?
NM: No.
DF: Can this item be something that is dealt with after WD publication as
part of the next round of editing ?
NM: Yes.
RajN: Yes.
GD: We could say that such features are not part of binding but are
extensions.
More discussion required.
NM: Is this an open issue ?
GD: Yes.

SKW: The latest draft has 2 HTTP bindings in it. Is this correct?
DF expresses surprise.
Marc: JJM just ran out of time while editing.
DF: Expects only the TBTF's HTTP binding.

More discussion on problems with viewing Part 2 of the spec.
HFN: will send out email regarding XML and HTML versions of specs.

8. During last week's f2f, we set a number of actions in motion to resolve

various issues. Do we accept the proposed resolutions?

-- Issue 101, special status of body [21]. Noah has prepared text to cover
this, and other issues, see [22].
NM: In his proposed text, he touched multiple areas of the text in dealing
with issue 101 and chapter 2/4 duplication. Nobody has brought up any major
issues, there are some changes associated with minor issues and editorial
changes required.

More discussion on peoples difficulty in viewing XML versions.

CF: has proposed changes for glossary.
NM: works OK with text in section 2.
DF: sounds like we have a resolution to the glossary issue.
CF is sending email with pointer to new changes.

HR: NM proposes changes to header processing model, CF added further steps.
Do we accept these changes ?
NM: Issue about removing headers not working with e.g. encryption. An
existing issue has been raised against this, and he suggests leaving its
resolution until after WD.
DF: should we remove the extra steps JJM has added to the spec ?
NM: my preference is to do so in the long run.
DF: Summarises discussion - this part of spec is known to be broken, and it
is proposed to leave it unchanged for now and fix it when we resolve the
outstanding issues, i.e. after the upcoming WD.
WG offers no objections

-- Issue 155, how to target blocks [20]. See Dug's proposed text [19]
DD: [19] gives exact text.
DF: (to the WG) should we close 155 by accepting that text ?
DD: actually, that is not quite the final text. In sec 4.2.2 it is proposed
to change "SOAP defines an actor attribute information item that can be
used to indicate the SOAP Node ...." to "SOAP defines an actor attribute
information item that is used to indicate the SOAP Node ....".
DF: is there any objection to closing issue 155 with this text?
WG offers no objections

-- Issue 171, attribute clashes on refs [12]. See Murali's proposed
resolution [13].

Start of discussion of meaning of xml:base and xsi:type on ref.

DF: calls time. Wants to thank the editors for their hard work over the
last few days.

End of call.