Derived from IRC Log
[Mark_J] IANA/W3C have concluded that the "shell" approach will work. [Mark_J] A shell Internet draft will reference a normative appendix in the IANA application. [Mark_J] AFTF wants to keep the attachment feature lightweight and abstract. [Henrik] WS-Attachment draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-dime-soap-01.txt [Mark_J] Henrik's IETF submission may be a starting point.
[Mark_J] Registration is now open for the face-to-face. Register ASAP to attend and to send regrets. [chrisf] hmmm... seems to me that the media type registration for appl/soap+xml should be in part 1, not part 2 [Henrik] hmm, didn't see Noah's mail on LC issues - seems to be agreement ;)
[Mark_J] Lynn's list of features seems to be OK. [Mark_J] Asir Vedamuthu volunteered to collect assertions not yet in the test collection (from part 2). [Mark_J] s/assertions/features/ [anish] The url to the email that I just send is: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002Jul/0033.html [Mark_J] Could we get feedback from developers on what is "in plan" and what is not? [Mark_J] Implementers need to state (a) what they have implemented and (b) what it has interoperated with. [Mark_J] Open question about when complete implementations will be available. [Mark_J] Open question about the role that soapbuilders can/should/may play.
[Mark_J] New LC issues list linked off of the public page. [Mark_J] We would like to go right from Proposed Rec to Final Rec. [Mark_J] Substantive changes will cause the WG to go back through Last Call again later. [Mark_J] DavidF -- classify issues as Editorial/Soap 1.3/Substantive. [Mark_J] Classify issues as Editorial/Not Soap 1.2/Substantive/Not An Issue/Duplicate [Mark_J] Classify issues as Editorial/Not Soap 1.2/Substantive/Duplicate [DavidF] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues For all issue decisions below, the Chair asked whether there was any objection to closing the issue with the proposal. In no case did a WG member reaise an objection. [Mark_J] LC Issue 206, WG decided this is not a Soap 1.2 issue and to close the issue without action. [noah2] Template: "The XMLP has duly considered and rejected your idea. Thank you for your input." :-) [Mark_J] LC Issue 208 -- needs clarification, Lynne to investigate whether issue already solved by LC text. [Mark_J] LC Iswsue 210, WG decided this is an editorial issue and to close it with the suggested text. [Mark_J] LC Issue 211, WG decided this is an editorial issue and to close it with text to be provided by the editors. [Mark_J] LC Issue 213, WG decided this is an editorial issue and to close it with changes to be made by the editors. [Mark_J] LC Issue 214, WG decided this is an editorial issue and to close it with text to be provided by the editors. [Mark_J] LC Issue 215, WG decided this is an editorial issue and to close it with the suggested text?? [Mark_J] [Adjourned.]
[RRSAgent] ACTION: DavidF: Respond to tag that we do not request a review of any particular subpart of our documents. Note that we expect that they are happy with their earlier review of the informal draft addressing the HTTP GET issue and that the solution has made it into the LC WD. [1] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-16-39 [RRSAgent] ACTION: MarkB and Spec editors to move technical contents of the media type draft into a normative appendix in the editor's draft (presumably part 2) following guidelines in "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype" [2] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-30-28 [RRSAgent] ACTION: DavidF: Contact implemeters in table 1 and ask for input on which features are in/out [3] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-01-01 [RRSAgent] ACTION: DavidF: Ask whether feature reports can be made public or not [4] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-02-27 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Stuart: Write closing text for 206 hinting that current model a) is not broken and b) does not prohibit the proposal from being implemented by others [5] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-40-02 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Lynne: Clarify that issue 208 is indeed current and valid [6] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-44-09 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Editors: roll in proposed text for issue 210 [7] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-50-10 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Editors: Fix editorial issue 211 [8] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-53-29 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Don: Send closing text for 210 and 211 [9] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-53-51 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Editors: Fix editorial issue 213 [10] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-55-51 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Don: Send closing text for 213 [11] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-56-02 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Editors: Fix editorial issue 214 [12] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-58-27 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Don: Send closing text for 214 [13] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-58-30 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Editors: Fix editorial issue 215 [14] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T21-02-55 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Don: Send closing text for 215 [15] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/03-xmlprotocol-irc#T21-03-01