Minutes of XMLP WG telcon, 3 November 2004

Based on IRC log

1. Roll
Present 11/10
BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
Canon, Herve Ruellan
IBM, David Fallside
IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin
Nokia, Michael Mahan
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar (scribe)
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
W3C, Yves Lafon

BEA Systems, David Orchard
Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
IBM, John Ibbotson
Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley

IONA Technologies, Suresh Kodichath

2. Agenda review

3. Minutes
[anish] Topic: approval of 27 October minutes
[anish] minutes approved without objection

4. Action items
[anish] topic: Review action items
[anish] davidf: most of them done
[anish] ... we had an action to add text for extension mechanism. This depended
on issue 501. Question to the group is whether this should be done.
[anish] no one has an opinion
[anish] davidf: 2004-09-29 action to gudge is then closed

5. Status reports
[anish] topic: xop media-type registration
[anish] yves: no news

[anish] topic: XMLP/WSD Task Force and WSDL Media Type document
[anish] anish: the LC doc and schema were published
[anish] ... there has been a comment sent on the TF mailing list
[anish] ... there is one substaintial comment about the expectedMediaType
production rules

[anish] topic: SOAP layered on HTTP & IETF policy
[anish] yves: no news

6. Candidate Recommendation
[anish] topic: Test status report, implementation page
[anish] davidf: johni went thru the status page and did not find any problems

[anish] davidf: yves and i will formally ask for PR
[anish] ... there are number of minor things that need to be cleared up. Mike
commented that the labeling of example was strange.
[anish] gudge: this is a style sheet issue. i labelled the examples manually and
therefore it looks strange
[anish] ... but the links all work. It is an issue for the Rep header doc as well
[anish] davidf: i suggest that we don't change the stylesheet at this point, but
we send an email to the maintainer. We can make ed changes during the PR period.
[anish] herve: i know of examples of specs that the stylesheet example problem
does not arise

[anish] davidf: another comment was on xop section 1.3 regarding the ed note with
a ref to the media type doc
[anish] ... this refers to the media-type doc
[anish] anish: this was added before the media-type doc was published as a WD
[anish] david: the ed note is a bit cryptic
[anish] ... is it agreeable to make the ed note less cryptic by saying that it
will track the media-type doc?
davidF: no objection, so we will do this

[anish] davidf: the last comment was about another ed note regarding the XOP
include element. Gudge's response was to remove it as we have not received any
feedback (which we had asked for)
[anish] ... this is the ed note in section in MTOM
[davidF] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/4/11/PR/OptimizationMechanism.html#httpof-sending-init
[anish] noah: i should have made a comment, but i did not, so will let it go. But
I don't like it that much
[anish] ... IBM comment -- the SOAP rec remains unchanged and bindings which
produce such errors are in that respect not conformant to SOAP bindings
[anish] ... please record this as an IBM concern
[anish] .. and say that we concur with removing the ed note
[anish] davidf: proposal is to remove the ed note. any objection?
[anish] no objection

[anish] davidf: any other comments?
[anish] WG did not have any other issues wrt to the document
[anish] davidf: we did vote to go PR last week, so these docs will go to PR. The
chair and w3c staff will set this in motion.

[anish] topic: primer
[anish] davidf: we will produce a second edition of the primer
[anish] ... we also need to talk about rolling the errata into the soap rec
[anish] ... which would be another edition of soap 1.2 rec
[anish] noah: it is useful to take the primer to rec?
[anish] noah: wrt to the package material that the AC will get, it should refer
to the primer
[anish] davidf: i will look into what it would take to bring the primer out faster
than the other doc
[anish] davidf: primer with mtom/xop is an ed copy. Few people have looked at it
[anish] noah: the reference needs to be a stable ref
[anish] ... don't know if w3c process will allow us to reference a dated ed copy
which is stable

[anish] meeting adjourned

[Zakim] Attendees were MarkN, Noah, Yves, David_Fallside, +aaaa, Anish, Canon,
Gudge, Mike_Mahan

[RRSAgent] I see 4 open action items:
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Anish to write up potential concern with media type doc [1]
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Yves to alert appropriate W3C staff about stylesheet issues
with examples [2]
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Yves to update the XOP ed note that refers to the media-type
doc [3]
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Yves to remove the ed note in MTOM (xop include element) [4]