W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 24 April 2002

1. Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items

Present 29/25 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda review, and AOB

Henryk -- take issues in #8 in I, II, III order.

3. Approval of March 27 (revised [6]) and April 17 telcon minutes [see member webpage]

Mark Hadley -- were changes made to April 17 minutes?
Yves -- no, and chnages to the 27 March minutes have not yet been posted.
DF -- Hold approval of both sets of minutes until next week.

4. Review action items, see [2]

Anyone who has sent notice of an issue's resolution to xml-comments should
signal if they have received pushback from the issue's originator.

5. Status reports

-- Primer
Primer is up-to-date wrt spec and xmlp-comments.

-- Spec
Ed to-do list has only about 3 items.

-- TBTF
3 things on the queue.  2 ed-notes on the AI list.
Working through a number of questions posed from outside the group.
Have created a proposal for streaming in the HTTP binding that will be
brought to the WG next call.

-- Conformance work
Waiting for Oisin to produce a new version.  Anish and Lynn Thompson
will determine what needs to be done.  The document needs to be
pushed forward.

-- Usage Scenarios
John Ibbotson approached by David Orchard to use SOAP usage scenarios
for the WSAWG.

-- Requirements document
Nothing to report.

-- Email binding
Highland MM -- not updated yet.

-- Readability edits
All the edits from the readabilty team are due to David F. by 4pm today.

6. Loose ends? E.g. are there any to-do's, issues etc that we have not

captured?
(Note that per the April 10 telcon and its agreement with [21], the WG has
closed its issue list to any new issues.)

None.

7. XMLP Charter update.

The current Charter of the WG ends at the end of this month [7]. In
anticipation of this, as Chair of the WG I sent a request to the W3C on
March 26th requesting a temporal extension to our Charter [8].
Historically, such requests have typically been granted without comment.
However, I have been informed today (23 April, 2002) that the W3C will
likely use our request to trigger a re-Chartering of the WG that involves
an AC review. In particular, the AC will likely be asked to replace all the
IPR statements in our Charter with references to the Current Patent
Practice Note [11]. The exact changes to our IPR statements have yet to be
decided upon, although I am told they may be approved by W3C Management and
made available to us a few hours before the XMLP telcon. Clearly, such a
re-Chartering cannot be accomplished before our Charter actually expires,
and so W3C would need to provide us with a temporal extension until such
time that the AC review could take place.

As Chair, I am bringing this matter to your attention because (a) you all
agreed to the Charter [7] when you joined the WG and W3C is proposing to
change to that agreement, and (b) the W3C has sought the Chair's opinion
which will be based on your opinion. We can spend a short period of time
clarifying/discussing/commenting on this matter - in general the Chair
would like to hear your comments - but it will be a strictly limited amount
of time.

David F. -- The AC will be asked to replace all the IPR statements in
our Charter with references to the Current Patent Practice Note in the
re-chartering.

David O. -- Will this affect the spec going to Rec?  Will a PAG need
to be formed?

David F. -- A PAG is formed when there is non-RF IP and no agreement.
The XMLP WG was chartered as an RF group, but does have a RAND
provision which may differ slightly from the CPP.

8. Remaining issues

I. a single decision to close the following issues with the listed proposals
-- 36, clarify nature of conformance, proposal [20]
-- 201, inconsistency in the spec regarding structure of the body, proposal [29]
-- 203, SOAP Module specification, proposal [4]
-- 199, allow xml:lang on faultString?, proposal [27]
-- 82 Header/block distinction, proposal [9]

Note that the editorial issue 193 is not in this list because it is closed already.

Dave F. -- Are there any objections to closing these issues with the proposals
listed in the agenda?
No obections raised.
David F: these issues are closed.

Assignments to send closing texts to xmlp-comments:
36 -- John I.
201 -- Marc H.
203 -- Glen Daniels
199 -- Henryk
82 -- Don
193 -- Marc H. will ensure text is sent.

II. what more is needed to close these issues?
-- 205, media type [17], proposal and request for clarification [19]
Henryk:  Don't do anything with Fragments, in text refer to RFC-3023.
         Clarify in text that SOAP uses XML-Base.
David F: any objection to closing issue 205 with these 2 actions?
No objections raised.
DavidF: issue 205 is closed. 
David F to send note to xmlp-comment.

-- 204, HTTP SOAP transcoding [15]
Mark Nottingham (by email) has asked whether we are providing directives for
HTTP header use related to HTTP transcoding.
Henryk: We could provide some non-normative text in the primer.
Discussion.
DavidF: any aobjections to closing issue 204 by D replying to Mark N. that the spec
won't comment on this issue.
No objections raised.
DavidF: issue 204 is closed.
Henryk: Send note to Mark N. and text to xmlp-comments.

-- 202, definition of intermediaries, revised proposal [13]
Proposal to resolve by [13].
DavidF: any objection to closing issue 202 with the proposal [13]?
No obejctions raised.
DavidF: issue 202 is closed.
Herve: Send note to xmlp-comment.

-- 200, SOAPAction header and "action" parameter on media type, proposal [28]
Henryk:  Proposal to move the value of the SOAPAction header to
the application/soap+xml action parameter, and remove the SOAPAction
header.
DavidF: any objection to closing issue 200 in this manner?
No objections raised.
DavidF: issue 200 is closed.
Henryk to send text to xmlp-comments.

-- 196, HTTP binding/status code, proposal [30]
Henryk:  Some faults have been moved down to be sub-level fault codes.
Four top-level codes left which have reasonable mappings to HTTP error
codes:
  version-mismatch => 500
  must-understand => 500
  sender => 400
  receiver => 500
DavidF: any objections to closing issue 196 with these mappings (and in [30])?
No objections raised.
David F: issue 196 is closed.
ChrisF: Send note to xmlp-comment.

III. time limited discussion on the two major ongoing issues
-- 195, mandating local name and namespace name of EII representing result
outbound edge a bad idea. Summary of proposal [16].

Jacek:
First proposal -- clarify what to do in the array case, return value
is named result in our namespace.
Second proposal -- more radical.  Remove return value entirely and
make application-specific.
XML schema is not appropriate for SOAP encoding.
Noah: Gudge had a proposal --
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0353.html
Another proposal is to use a "generic" for RPC rather than a struct.
Henryk: With generic, would it have a known name for the return value or
indicate it positionally?
Noah: There was a proposal to drop arrays entirely.
Mark J.: Could use an example showing edge cases in each proposal.
DavidF: Take issue back to email.


-- 194, encodingStyle on soap:Header/soap:Body, from Part 1(a) in [5]. A
summary of the issue is at [26].
Henryk:  Gudge set out 4 options and a question asking why do we need
encodingStyle at all.

Some in favor of rip out option (5) and some in favor of status quo
(1).  There is a need to clarify what is meant by "status quo".

Henryk:  Gudge's options lay out whether it applies to self or to
children.
Ray:  Describe where it is applicable, and then it applies to
everything below that.

Currently, the encodingStyle attribute is defined in the envelope
namespace.

DavidF: Take issue back to email.

9. Last Call Planning

The LC planning document [21] described the editors creating a new snapshot
of the specs after today's telcon, and then the WG reviewing those docs in
time for a go/no-go LC decision at our next telcon on May 1. There are 13
issues on today's agenda: In case we do not resolve all these issues we
need to decide when to take our next snapshot, and when to make the
go/no-go decision.

2 remaining issues (194, 195) and 2 ed-notes and streaming discussion
from TBTF.  Need to finish the test conformance document.

John I. -- Do we need the conformance document when entering Last Call
or before exiting Last Call?

One proposal is to take the next snapshot after next telcon (5/1) and
then make final decision on 5/8.

Chair takes an action to figure out how to proceed, especially with
respect to the test conformance document.

[Call ended here.]

References.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002Apr/0007.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/Admin/#pending
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002Apr/0015.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0306.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002Feb/0161.html
[6] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/27-minutes.html
[7] http://www.w3.org/2000/09/XML-Protocol-Charter#schedule
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2002Mar/0052.html
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/0062.html
[10] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x192
[11] http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice
[12] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x201
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0313.html
[14] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x203
[15] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x204
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0234.html
[17] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x205
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/0226.html
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002Apr/0123.html
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0254.html
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002Apr/0067.html
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/0235.html
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0188.html
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0150.html
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0159.html
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0238.html
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0292.html
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0026.html