XMLP WG telcon minutes, 7 July 2004

1. Roll
Present 7/6
Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
IBM, David Fallside
IBM, John Ibbotson (scribe)
IONA Technologies, Suresh Kodichath
Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel
W3C, Yves Lafon

IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
Canon, Herve Ruellan
Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer

BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers
SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley

BEA Systems, David Orchard
Nokia, Michael Mahan
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky

2. Agenda review

3. Approval of minutes postponed

4. Review of Action Items
        Yves    Still a few clarifications needed for Rec20.  So item not completed
                2 or 3 new issues (Agenda item 6 - new issues)
        Anish   Section 1.2 text Issue 479 - done
                Incorporate Issue 479 part 3 - done
        Yves  All changes mereged - Ed copy up to date
        Nilo expects to provide updated primer by July 13th

5. Media type registrations
        David - was it published ?
        No-one knows
        XML/WSD task force - no update
        Primer review postponed

6. Last call issues

470 - pushback from Graham Klyne
        URL should be 44 instead of 43
        Gudge is the example valid ?
        David how solid is the content-type ?
        Gudge his concern is to indicate what the original infoset was
                We haven't figured this out
                Quoted RFC does include an interpretation
        David hits on Google on original-content-type
                Internet draft 7/2000 expired
        Gudge its intent is error handling
                seems like the right kind of header
        David no lingering semantics from error message ?
        Gudge don't think so
        David so how do we let people know the effect of the original mime type ?
        Gudge indicate that we have a XOP/MTOM is the content type of the outer Mime package
                subsequently don'e have to register another media type
                Happy to accept the change
                Does the 8-ball know whether this will go back to LC
        Yves    Don't think so
                it's just a hint that can be over-ridden at runtime.
        David   what does the group think ?
        Record in minutes, WG generally in favour but will wait for the larger
        group to convene before making a decision.
        Don't contact Graham yet.

        David   One part to decide, part 4
                agreed with commentator, Gudge drafted reply
                draft only appeared before meeting - returning to it
                Any updates Gudge ?
        Gudge   none received - still happy
        David   any comments ?
                any problems ?
                do we need to wait for WG ?
                heading towards accepting the resolution
        No objections received from WG
                Accept Gudge's draft text.
        Finished resolution of 479

        David   With exception of Gudge's part 4 text
                Agreed all sub-parts
                Any objection to closing 479 with all the sub-resolutions ?
        No objections
        issue 479 closed
        Volunteer needed to send response to commentator
        AI to Yves

        David does WG agree this is an editorial issue ?
        No objections
        Resolved this is an editorial issue
        AI to editors and response to commentator

New issues
        Issue from WSD WG
        David would like to keep in sync with WSD WG
                provides some specific text
                anyone think this should be left to larger WG ?
        Gudge   happy to add text
        Yves    not sure we need to add anything at all
        David   any other opinions ?
        No responses
        David   wait until next week for discussion

        XOP issue reference to Base64 specification     
        propose to use a more recent RFC
        Gudge   doesn't define canonical form therfore reject
        David   propose to reject since schema defines a canonical form
                no objections
                issue closed
        AI to Gudge to respond to commentator

        XOP: Why element content only ?
        David   did debate why we can't optimise attribute content
        Gudge   refers to section 1 which only refers to elements
                then inserted text in section 1 which split sentence
                and didn't change.
                Suggest we remove "As a result," in into to XOP (simplest)
        David   agree
        Gudge   comentator not complaining - just not clear
        David   proposal we remove "As a result," from paragraph 5
                no objections
                issue closed
        AI to Gudge and editors to respond and update XOP spec 

        XOP namespace declaration in original infoset
        Gudge he's correct
                we should change the example
        David   agree
                should we call out this elsewhare ?
                don't think we can prohibit this from happening
        Gudge   if we hoist the namespace, won't have the same infoset you started with
        David   do explicitly say you have to re-constitute the infoset
                propose we change the example and accept the suggestion
        Gudge   agree
        David   propose we accept the actions proposed by the commentator
        No objections
        issue closed
        AI to Gudge and Editors

        Clarificaton on format change
        Gudge change word "format" to "semantics" but prefer if more people here
        Wait for wider group
        Gudge to write proposal to wider WG
        JJ leaving
        David   is Canon still going to send LC comments ?
        JJ      yes
        David   are they substantial ?
        JJ      don't know
        David they are late so WG reserves right to not consider them

        ContentID in MTOM
        David   in general, we know this is trus
                did we drop the ball in executing resolution to 451
                is this editorial
        Gudge   it's editorial
                action to Eds to implement 451 :-)
        David   we can take this as our resolution
                is there enough info for editors to resolve ? checking .....
                yes, leave to editors
                proposal - ask eds to implement 451
        No objections
        AI to Pete Wenzel

Still not at time, chair proposes to close meeting
Gudge offers to do editorial work since lead editor is out until end of Aug
David   take it offline to contact Noah and Mark
        no other items, meeting closed