Based on IRC log
1. Roll Present 15/10 BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham BEA Systems, David Orchard Canon, Herve Ruellan (scribe) IBM, Noah Mendelsohn IBM, John Ibbotson IBM, David Fallside IONA Technologies, Seumas Soltysik Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley Systinet (IDOOX), Jacek Kopecky W3C, Carine Bournez W3C, Yves Lafon Excused Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau IONA Technologies, Mike Greenberg Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer SAP AG, Volker Wiechers Systinet, Miroslav Simek Regrets DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Mario Jeckle Nokia, Michael Mahan Oracle, Anish Karmarkar Absent DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Andreas Riegg Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky 2. Agenda review 3. Minutes not posted: approval postponed to next week. 4. Review AI [herveScribe] DF: Action from Gudge&MarkN becoms AI to editors. [herveScribe] MarkN?: Check. [herveScribe] DF: R26 removed in CVS, also in online copy? [herveScribe] Yves: if in CVS should be in online copy. [herveScribe] Gudge: enough info in email to update XOP spec. [herveScribe] DF: make changes according to email in ed copy. [herveScribe] Yves: R26 still in the online copy [herveScribe] DF: Tony and Yves to solve diff between CVS and online copy. [Gudge] ACTION: Editors to update XOP spec to say that xop:Include cannot have any children per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004Feb/0021.html [herveScribe] Note: should reorganize previous notes depending on the AI spoken of. 5. Status reports [herveScribe] - Media type registration [herveScribe] MarkN: request published as RFC. [herveScribe] Noah: potential issue about 3023, regarding version of XML which can be used. [herveScribe] Noah: may want to put some text in media type: application/soap+xml is based on application/xml but with the restriction that only uses xml 1.0 [herveScribe] Noah: the issue is that xml 1.1 allows characters not allowed in xml 1.0. [herveScribe] DF: is it possible to update the draft if 3023 changes? [herveScribe] Noah: 3023 may be understood as open-ended. Therefore SOAP 1.2 may be understood to allow xml 1.1 in the HTTP binding. [herveScribe] DF: issue 447 is waiting IETF for feedback on media type. [herveScribe] MarkN: no response, which can be interpretated as no problem. [herveScribe] - XMLP/WD Task Force [herveScribe] DF: Anish not present, but we will keep this topic alive. [herveScribe] - XMLP/WSD joint meeting in Cannes [herveScribe] DF: motivation is that we have several points which might benefit from a joint meeting in Cannes. [herveScribe] DF: XMLP meet on Mo-Tu, WSD on Th-Fr [herveScribe] DF: One option would be to find some time on Wednesday. [herveScribe] DF: two items, previous one, meet to find more about their need for a stable MTOM/XOP document. [herveScribe] Noah: good thing to want to do. [herveScribe] Noah: reluctant to have meeting during plenary. [herveScribe] Noah: compromise would be to have meeting during lunch. [herveScribe] Tony: there are some time during end of plenary and reception. [Noah] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/TechPlenAgenda.html [herveScribe] DF: lunch might be a good compromize. [herveScribe] DF: will investigate wednesday lunch meeting. [JacekK] ACTION: Chair to investigate Wed lunch f2f meeting with ws-desc WG [herveScribe] - Comments to I18N [herveScribe] DF: we sent comments to I18N character model. Ask review 2 of their decisions. [herveScribe] Need someone to review these decisions. [herveScribe] DF: I18N asked us to formally respond. [herveScribe] DF: need to solve this during next telcon. [JacekK] ACTION 3= TonyG to review I18N's decisions on our comments (in time for next weeks telcon) 6. Attachments [herveScribe] DF: Note MTOM and XOP WD were published a couple of days ago. [herveScribe] - Action items [herveScribe] DF: Security section drafted. Need to decide if draft can go into ed draft. [herveScribe] DF: are there comments on draft? [herveScribe] MarkN: looks reasonable. [herveScribe] No objection to incorporate that text. [JacekK] ACTION: Herve to incorporate Gudge's security section text [herveScribe] - Issue discussion. [herveScribe] = Issues requiring a first step [herveScribe] ** 457 ** [herveScribe] Yves: Need to describe HTTP extension [herveScribe] DF: Someone to do this work. [herveScribe] Yves: basis for a proposal is already in email sent. [herveScribe] DF: Strawman: use Yves proposal as modified by Jacek as a proposal. [herveScribe] MarkN: Maybe look at use cases before doing it. [herveScribe] Yves: Use case of HTTP caches to sent update from one cache to the other. [herveScribe] Yves: along with the body, need to send all the header. [herveScribe] MarkN: may be a little application specific. [herveScribe] DF: Yves, you made comment that this work is "necessary". [herveScribe] Yves: not necessary, but providing it is a good thing to do. [herveScribe] DF: is it a good thing or a necessary thing? [herveScribe] Yves: a necessary thing. [herveScribe] Noah: Yves makes a good case that it will be usefull, but may not be necessary to do it now. [herveScribe] Yves: what is needed is quite small and should be done is reasonable amount of time. If not willing to defer it. Would like to give it a try. [herveScribe] DF: ask you to write proposal and then we decide if accept it or not. [herveScribe] Noah: ask ourselves what the risk that we didn't understand the problem. [herveScribe] Jacek: make this in an extension, don't think necessary that WG does it, don't think UC is compelling. [herveScribe] MarkN: that sort of thing is not defined currently. If small delta would be nice to have it. Concerned that is may not be small. [herveScribe] DF: ask Yves to write proposal. Look at it next week. Will not spend lot of time on it. [herveScribe] DF: will have to be an obvious right solution. [JacekK] ACTION 5= Yves to write up a proposal for 457 (by COB this week) [herveScribe] ** 458 ** [Noah] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11 [herveScribe] Noah: core WG has published xml 1.1. Both 1.0 and 1.1 remain recommendation. [Noah] XML 1.1 adds NEL (#x85) to the list of line-end characters. For completeness, the Unicode line separator character, #x2028, is also supported. [herveScribe] Noah: recommendation is: if content can be represented in 1.0, do it (more tool support it), otherwise go to 1.1. [herveScribe] Noah: shows the new things (see IRC log). [Noah] 2.11 End-of-Line Handling [Noah] XML parsed entities are often stored in computer files which, for editing convenience, are organized into lines. These lines are typically separated by some combination of the characters CARRIAGE RETURN (#xD) and LINE FEED (#xA). [Noah] To simplify the tasks of applications, the XML processor MUST behave as if it normalized all line breaks in external parsed entities (including the document entity) on input, before parsing, by translating all of the following to a single #xA character: [Noah] the two-character sequence #xD #xA [Noah] the two-character sequence #xD #x85 [Noah] the single character #x85 [Noah] the single character #x2028 [Noah] any #xD character that is not immediately followed by #xA or #x85. [Noah] The characters #x85 and #x2028 cannot be reliably recognized and translated until an entity's encoding declaration (if present) has been read. Therefore, it is a fatal error to use them within the XML declaration or text declaration. [Noah] Finally, there is considerable demand to define a standard representation of arbitrary Unicode characters in XML documents. Therefore, XML 1.1 allows the use of character references to the control characters #x1 through #x1F, most of which are forbidden in XML 1.0. For reasons of robustness, however, these characters still cannot be used directly in documents. In order to improve the robustness of character encoding detection, the additional control ch [herveScribe] Noah: we define SOAP as an XML infoset. Are new characters allowed in Infoset? [herveScribe] Noah: SOAP envelope may be moved by different binding. Problem is that a SOAP envelope with new characters will not be handled by current deployed SOAP systems. [herveScribe] Noah: need to check the spec for ambiguity. [Noah] The overall philosophy of names has changed since XML 1.0. Whereas XML 1.0 provided a rigid definition of names, wherein everything that was not permitted was forbidden, XML 1.1 names are designed so that everything that is not forbidden (for a specific reason) is permitted. Since Unicode will continue to grow past version 4.0, further changes to XML can be avoided by allowing almost any character, including those not yet assigned, in names. [herveScribe] Noah: one resolution would be to mandate xml 1.0 characters for SOAP envelope. [herveScribe] Noah: have analogous problem with XML names. [herveScribe] Noah: last issue is about 3023: there is an interpretation of our spec which already allows those new characters and new names. [herveScribe] MarkN: if 3023 can be interpreted as xml 1.0 and 1.1 and we don't want this, then we should split from 3023. [herveScribe] Noah: think that 3023 should allow specification depending on it to restrict version of xml allowed. [herveScribe] Noah: do we want to allow new characters and new names in SOAP infoset? [herveScribe] Noah: when decided, check the spec for any point where the spec may not be clear. [herveScribe] DF: we need to discuss this in email. [herveScribe] ** 444 ** [herveScribe] DF: to solve this issue we need someone to do work described in it. [herveScribe] Noah: think issue was about checking "dm:type" return this type of things. [herveScribe] Noah: is there any loose end on some accessor? [herveScribe] Gudge: thinks all details are nailed down. [herveScribe] DF: thinks should close issue as we have resolved it. [herveScribe] DF: thought that include children is the only missing one. [herveScribe] Gudge: thinks that's right. [herveScribe] DF: is there any objection to closing issue 444 by noting recent review of XOP and MTOM specs and action of changing xop:include children. [herveScribe] No objection: action closed. [Yves] ACTION: Noah to send an email to xmlp-commente and editors to close issue 444 [herveScribe] = Issues Ready for immediate resolution [herveScribe] ** 456 ** [Noah] ACTION: Noah to send email to distApp encouraging discussion of issue 458 which is about XML 1.1 [herveScribe] Noah: one comment: why do you make me optimize everything that is base64Binary; may not be usefull if it is small. [davidF] ACTION: Noah to send closing email re. issue 444, to be sent to originator and xmlp-comments [herveScribe] Noah: can see from two point of view: [herveScribe] Noah: this is an abstract data model, don't need to really implement it. [herveScribe] Noah: this is an existing data model, don't need to change it by removing types which are not base64Binary. [herveScribe] Noah: prefer first solution. [herveScribe] Herve: just want to remove the constraint on not optimized Element Nodes. [herveScribe] Gudge: thinks that removing constraint on type property for other Element Nodes simple and solve both problems. [herveScribe] Proposal: close 456 by removing the second of the two sentences mentioned in the proposal. [herveScribe] No objections; issue closed [davidF] ACTION: Gudge to send closing email re. issue 456, to be sent to originator and xmlp-comments [herveScribe] Meeting adjourned. [RRSAgent] I see 9 open action items: [RRSAgent] ACTION: Editors to update XOP spec to say that xop:Include cannot have any children per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004Feb/0021.html [1] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Chair to investigate Wed lunch f2f meeting with ws-desc WG [2] [RRSAgent] ACTION: TonyG to review I18N's decisions on our comments (in time for next weeks telcon) [3] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Herve to incorporate Gudge's security section text [4] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Yves to write up a proposal for 457 (by COB this week) [5] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Noah to send an email to xmlp-commente and editors to close issue 444 [6] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Noah to send email to distApp encouraging discussion of issue 458 which is about XML 1.1 [7] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Noah to send closing email re. issue 444, to be sent to originator and xmlp-comments [8] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Gudge to send closing email re. issue 456, to be sent to originator and xmlp-comments [9]