Based on IRC log
1. Roll Present 10/7 BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham IBM, John Ibbotson IBM, Noah Mendelsohn IBM, David Fallside IONA Technologies, Suresh Kodichath Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin Nokia, Michael Mahan Oracle, Anish Karmarkar Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley (scribe) Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham Excused BEA Systems, David Orchard Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky Regrets SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel W3C, Yves Lafon Absent Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon, Herve Ruellan SAP AG, Volker Wiechers 2. Agenda review Chair: adding new item to discuss future of WG after Recommendation 3. Minutes of 22 September 2004 approved without objection 4. Action item review Changes to action item status listed in agenda: -- action to editors to resolve CR issue 500 is done [scribe_marc] 5. Status reports and misc [scribe_marc] Media type registrations, RFC 3902 - now an RFC [scribe_marc] XOP media type registration still in progress [scribe_marc] this registration is part of the XOP document, automatic registration once reaches correct W3C status [davidF] ACTION: yves and markN to find out what rec level doc is required for XOP before we can ask IANA to register app/xop media type [scribe_marc] Thanks to MArk for shepherding registration [scribe_marc] XMLP/WSD Task Force and WSDL Media Type document [scribe_marc] Still awaiting editorial fixes discussed last week [Yves] as it was announced not so long ago, there is a "grace time" for comments, and then I'll ask Martin and Dan to formally request the registration [scribe_marc] Anish will update after WSD conf call [scribe_marc] Primer review [scribe_marc] Incorrect example in primer (wrt to HTTP headers) [scribe_marc] Marc: not reviewed yet [scribe_marc] Gudge has reviewed new parts, good except example noted above [Gudge] ACTION: Gudge to send e-mail to Nilo and xmlp-comments with comments on primer (pretty much OK apart from examples ) [scribe_marc] Primer title doesn't mention representation header [scribe_marc] gudge: will title change when published or i scurrent title just a working draft thing [davidF] new primer title is "SOAP Version 1.2 Part 0: Primer with MTOM/XOP additions" [Noah] I like marc's 2nd edition [scribe_marc] Suggest friendlier title [scribe_marc] E.g. Primer - Second Edition [davidF] ACTION: marc to send "friendly title" email to nilo re. Primer [scribe_marc] Suresh: editorial fix in example [davidF] ACTION: suresh to send ed comment email to nilo re. Primer [scribe_marc] DF: reaching end of our work on MTOM, XOP, Rep Hdr. What happens to WG once they reach Rec ? WG to think about this and will add to agenda for forthcoming meeting [scribe_marc] gudge: champagne for chair and then dissolve into sunset [scribe_marc] noah: low key maintenance mode, filter issues and batch. make decision to soap 1.2.1 or 1.3 later [scribe_marc] marc: agree with Noah [scribe_marc] mark: agree with Noah [scribe_marc] 6. Candidate Recommendation [scribe_marc] Issue 500 [scribe_marc] Stylesheet issue, fixed [Gudge] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Sep/0022.html [scribe_marc] Issue closed [scribe_marc] Issue 501/502 [scribe_marc] Confusion, reply to 501 was re 502 [scribe_marc] A Vine replied on 501 [scribe_marc] 501 reply: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Sep/0018.html [scribe_marc] gudge: generally don't restate normative stuff from other specs [scribe_marc] noah: perhaps put something in primer [scribe_marc] df: any mention of charset in primer now ? [scribe_marc] gudge: no mention wrt to issue raised [scribe_marc] no action on paragraph 1 [scribe_marc] suspicion that i18n have not fully internalized the tunneling nature of MTOM/XOP [davidF] ACTION: noah to draft response to vine on 501 to w3c-member [scribe_marc] Precedence rules [scribe_marc] Lack of understanding of issue being raised [davidF] ACTION: gudge to ask vine for clariifcation on precedence comment in 501 reply [davidF] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Sep/0020.html [scribe_marc] Issue 503 Feedback from A Vine [Noah] +1 to Gudge. They should write it. [scribe_marc] Adding charset and language headers [scribe_marc] Unsure if i18n is aware of xmime:contentType header [scribe_marc] noah: their issue 501 concerns use of contentType so it seems likely i18n are aware of it [davidF] character encoding in use [davidF] > for such data may be determined in a number of ways, including, but not [davidF] > limited to; specifying the charset as part of the xmime:contentType [scribe_marc] noah: add to text re use of xmime: contentType to mention charset [Noah] In Representation Header, we've set a clear precedent: [Noah] We don't ourselves standardize attributes for http headers in general [scribe_marc] noah: reiterate that we've provided an example fo providing extension elements, sugest they develop one for language [Noah] content-language is an example of such a header, and indeed is one for which the i18n group might be the appropriate place for standardization. By contrast, we might expect other groups to consider attributes relating to, for example, cache lifetimes. [Gudge] ACTION: Gudge to write some text about using the extension mechanism in RRSHB to add HTTP header information [scribe_marc] Point 8 [scribe_marc] gudge: i18n is assuming a different start point. MTOM starts with a representation not a URI that one want to send a representation of [Gudge] s/MTOM/RRSHB [scribe_marc] (right) [scribe_marc] Suggestion is out of scope [scribe_marc] Issue 504 [scribe_marc] Fixed in editors copy that will become PR [scribe_marc] Issue 502 [Gudge] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Sep/0016.html [davidF] So that means that you explicitly exclude IRIs. This is of course [davidF] not what we asked for. Any good reason for this? Without any [davidF] justification, I cannot immagine how we could agree to such [davidF] a resolution. [scribe_marc] noah: seems to be a missunderstanding, might as well push on HTTP for not supporting IRIs [scribe_marc] rep models at URI layer not IRI [scribe_marc] where URI layer == web [scribe_marc] mark: IRIs are not yet a standard [davidF] >The value of the resource attribute information SHOULD be a URI Reference [davidF] >as defined in RFC 2396 including ammendments to that definition found in [davidF] >RFC 2732. [davidF] So that means that you explicitly exclude IRIs. This is of course [davidF] not what we asked for. Any good reason for this? Without any [davidF] justification, I cannot immagine how we could agree to such [davidF] a resolution. [scribe_marc] XML schema includes a ref to XML linking hich in turn includes an algorithm that anticipates IRIs [scribe_marc] noah: suggests we could take this approach [scribe_marc] Consensus of group is to maintain status quo [davidF] ACTION: noah to draft response to point 5 in duerst's push-back http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Sep/0016.html [Zakim] Attendees were Gudge, Mark_Nottingham, John_Ibbotson, Suresh, Marc, David_Fallside, +44.125.242.aaaa, +1.858.831.aabb, Anish, Noah [RRSAgent] ACTION: yves and markN to find out what rec level doc is required for XOP before we can ask IANA to register app/xop media type [1] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Gudge to send e-mail to Nilo and xmlp-comments with comments on primer (pretty much OK apart from examples ) [2] [RRSAgent] ACTION: marc to send "friendly title" email to nilo re. Primer [3] [RRSAgent] ACTION: suresh to send ed comment email to nilo re. Primer [4] [RRSAgent] ACTION: noah to draft response to vine on 501 to w3c-member [5] [RRSAgent] ACTION: gudge to ask vine for clariifcation on precedence comment in 501 reply [6] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Gudge to write some text about using the extension mechanism in RRSHB to add HTTP header information [7] [RRSAgent] ACTION: noah to draft response to point 5 in duerst's push-back http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Sep/0016.html [8]