See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 30 March 2010
<scribe> Scribe: Mark
All approve the minutes from previous meetings
All approve the agenda with no amendments
Mark: No changes now felt necessary for clarification on Topic support
close action-138
<trackbot> ACTION-138 Raise the question of Topic support as an issue closed
Eric: 146 - still following this up
Mark: 147 - complete
close action-147
<trackbot> ACTION-147 Apply the resolution to issue 28 closed
Mark: 148 - will respond to mailing list
Phil: 150 done
close action-150
<trackbot> ACTION-150 Raise issue re: assertion 2014 and propose a resolution closed
<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Mar/0026.html
Eric: 152 is complete - bogus action item (spec changes already made)
close action-152
<trackbot> ACTION-152 Address use of the word "may" in the second bullet of the soapjms:contentType description within the SOAP/JMS binding spec closed
Eric: 153
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Mar/0027.html
Eric: action is complete
close action-153
<trackbot> ACTION-153 Investigate feasibility of operating JMS in the cloud closed
Mark: 154 still pending
Phil: 155 still pending
Eric: 156 - complete - see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Mar/0024.html
close action-156
<trackbot> ACTION-156 Come uo with counter proposal for issue 31 (isFault) closed
Still pending - per action to chase up Oracle
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/29
Marl: Will respond to mailing list - issue to remain "Raised"
Issue 32: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/32
Eric: Proposal is to remove Protocol-2015 assertion for the 3 reasons given in the link
RESOLUTION: No objections to opening Issue 32
Issue 33: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/33
Phil: Aim is to clean up assertion 2014: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Protocol-2014
RESOLUTION: No objections to opening Issue 33
Eric: Skipping issue 27 - updating the URI which should be straightforward
Mark: Issue 30 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/30
... Should we mention the URI in the WSDL 2.0 section which
aims to clarify precedence rules
Amy: Do not agree that this proposal clarifies the spec - may make it more murky
Eric: From the example linked
above, a property could be put in the URI (line 41)
... Looking at the WSDL2 example - properties could go in line
19 (URI)
... or the endpoint (outside the URI)
Amy: The attributes of Endpoint take precedence of it's child elements
Eric: Proposal could be stronger if it says "The address attribute of the endpoint wins over endpoint elements, which wins over service".... etc
Peter: This is a fairly pathological case
Amy: Agreed extensibility in WSDL doesn't normally include the contents - we are looking at a case where properties in an attribute are different from the content of the element which is unlikely
<eric> (eric getting virtual feathers ready....)
Amy: WSDL 2.0 establishes clear precedence rules (unlike WSDL 1.1) so if we specify additional behaviour in SOAP/JMS we will be effectively modifying the WSDL2.0 spec.
Phil: So by saying "Endpoint wins over service" - does that include the address attribute overriding child extensibility elements?
Amy: No, you wouldn't expect child elements to override the attributes - this is what Peter called the pathalogical case
Eric: We could go back to section 3.4.4 and say that the behaviour would be undefined if elements in the Port override properties in the address attribute
Phil: Does anyone have a problem that properties in the address attribute should *NOT* override child elements
?
Phil: Could be clearer in 3.4.4 about which URI we mean - i.e. the address attribute of the Port element
<scribe> ACTION: Phil to propose an alternate proposal to resolve issue 30 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-157 - Propose an alternate proposal to resolve issue 30 [on Phil Adams - due 2010-04-06].
Eric: Out of time
Eric: The high priority item for us in moving to PR is how we test for interoperability
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: mphillip Found Scribe: Mark Default Present: +1.919.663.aaaa, alewis, +1.512.918.aabb, padams, +1.708.246.aacc, +0196287aadd, mphillip, +1.650.846.aaee, eric, +1.617.519.aaff, peaston Present: +1.919.663.aaaa alewis +1.512.918.aabb padams +1.708.246.aacc +0196287aadd mphillip +1.650.846.aaee eric +1.617.519.aaff peaston Found Date: 30 Mar 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-soap-jms-minutes.html People with action items: phil WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]