XMLP WG telcon minutes, 10 March 2004

1. Roll
Present 12/10
BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
Canon, Herve Ruellan
IBM, John Ibbotson
IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
IBM, David Fallside
IONA Technologies, Seumas Soltysik (scribe)
Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin
Nokia, Michael Mahan
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
Systinet, Jacek Kopecky
W3C, Yves Lafon

BEA Systems, David Orchard
Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
IONA Technologies, Mike Greenberg
Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer
SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley
Systinet, Miroslav Simek

DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Andreas Riegg
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Mario Jeckle
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel

2. Agenda Review

3. Approval of f2f meeting minutes, draft available at

4. Review action items, see http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/Admin/#pending.
2004/02/04: DavidF 
Draft an email to SVG regarding resolution of 452 
2004/03/01: Gudge 
Respond to SVG and xmlp-comments re. issue 453 
2004/03/01: Noah 
Send email openning issue on updating SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding to reflect MTOM.
2004/03/01: Anish 
Generate the first draft of the Representation document (by 3/10) 
2004/03/01: Jacek 
Send closing email to 462 stating what I proposed and that it will be added to
the XOP introduction 
2004/03/01: Editors 
Tweak XOP introduction (paras 2 and 3) to incorporate resolution to 462
2004/03/01: Mark 
Raise the issue on clarification about infosets transported by SOAP 1.2 bindings
being limited to those serializable 
2004/03/01: DavidF 
Set up a time-limited XML 1.1 task force (regarding issues 458 and the new binding
infoset issue) 
PENDING, call for participation sent
2004/03/01: DavidF 
Co-ordinate XMLP/Core minutes and organise XOP/XINCLUDE FAQ TF 
2004/03/01: DaveO 
Send closing email on issue 448 (to originator and xmlp comments) describing the
2004/03/01: Editors 
Implement the above resolution to 448 
2004/03/01: Editors 
Make change to Section 2 ( and possibly 2.1 ) to clarify that any other packaging
mechanisms must transport the infoset with full fidelity 
2004/03/01: Gudge 
Send the closing email on issue 454 
2004/03/02: JJM 
Write closing email for issue 455 
2004/03/02: Editors of representation header spec 
Incorporate the resolution to 455 
2004/03/02: Yves 
Send closing email on issue 457 
2004/03/02: Editors of representation header spec 
Incorporate the resolution to 457 
2004/03/02: Jacek 
Write the closing email on issue 452 (declining to take any action) 
2004/03/02: Noah 
Find out of XML Schema WG have communicated to XML Query WG regarding extension
of infoset rather than new data model 
2004/03/02: Gudge 
Send closing email to xmlp-comments and originator to close 460 
2004/03/02: Gudge 
Send closing email to xmlp-comments and originator to close 461 
2004/03/02: Anish 
Send closing email to xmlp-comments and originator to close issue 449 
2004/03/02: Tony 
Send closing email to xmlp-comment to close issue 463 
2004/03/02: Mark 
Generate a proposal on issue 464 
PENDING, (partially completed)
2004/03/02: JJM 
Send closing email for rec issue 9 
2004/03/02: Yves 
Edit errata page incorporating resolution to 9rec 
2004/03/02: Anish 
Send email to originator and xmlp-comments to close issue rec8 
2004/03/02: Yves 
Fix the errata per resolution of issue rec8 
2004/03/02: Herve 
Send closing email to spammer and xmlp-comments to close issue rec10 
2004/03/02: Yves 
Fix the errata per resolution of issue rec10 
2004/03/02: Yves 
Make the first subissue of 11rec into another Rec issue 
2004/03/02: Mark 
Send email to commentator and xmlp-comments to close issue 11rec 
2004/03/02: Yves 
Fix the errata per resolution of 11rec 
2004/03/02: Anish 
Investigate on the status of issue 19 rec 
2004/03/02: Yves 
Put in a new rec issue pointing at our XML 1.1 issue 
2004/03/02: Mark 
Make a proposal for issue 447 

5. Status reports and misc (9.00 + 20)
-- Media types registrations ("application/soap+xml", etc)
*No new information.

-- XMLP/WSD Task Force
*No new information

-- Responding to XML Query. We have alerted them of our possible intent to 'co-respond'
with Schema. Is Schema's response ready, and do we wish to co-respond? See

David-Might piggy back on top of Schemas comments. Not sure if Schemas comments
are currently ready, does any Schema WG member know?
No one knows.
David-we will revisit this topic next week

-- Jacek has alerted us to a "SOAP Data Model Schema Language", see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Mar/0015.html. Do we wish to
do anything about this?

Jacek-Schema language for SOAP data model. WSDL2.0 no longer supports encoded style.
Would like people to review this model, and XMLP may want to put its name on the
document along with WSD at a later time.

-- Volunteers sought for 11TF, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004Mar/0012.html.

David-We are setting up a 11 task force to report back to working group. 
Herve-Volunteers for 11TF
David-Meeting times will be determined through email.

6. Attachments (9.20 + 40)
o 464, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x459. Requirements R9.
Check whether this requirement has been met after completing other work on MTOM/XOP.
MarkN has proposed a partial resolution for this, see

MarkN-Document extensibility. How specs can describe extensibility. Short summary
of all specs that XOP depends upon and discusses how XOP can make use of these
extensibility items. How can XOP be extended?(it can't)
David-Should Mark do a version of this document for MTOM?
David-We ask Marck to proceed with a version for MTOM. Should we do one for
Representation Header?
Mark-I won't know until I have seen the Representation Hdr document
Noah-Are there any constraints on extensibility with respect to XOP?

o 452. We closed this issue at the f2f by saying that we would not support
optimisation of attribute content. Herve has created a proposal to re-open this
issue, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004Mar/0013.html.
Do we wish to re-open the issue in light of this proposal? If "no", then we will
send the closing email to SVG, see

David-Does new proposal have merit? Is this approach really new?
Herve-Approach is not exactly new. Would be good for XOP to support optimisation.
Jacek-I don't think this is new
Noah-Should choose between handling general case of not handling any attributes at all.
Jacek-We might consider re-opening this issue because of support from member of WG(Canon)
Gudge-There have always been two lists of things to be optimized. What has changed?
David-452 will stay closed. Jacek will send the closing email to SVG that he drafted.