See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 31 August 2010
<scribe> Scribe: Mark
Minutes are approved without modification
No modifications to agenda
None
Eric: 146 and 181 pending
Derek: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/191 - done
Eric: We can discuss in "raised spec. issues"
... 193 is pending
Mark 201 is done
close action-201
<trackbot> ACTION-201 Apply the resolutions for issues 56, 57, 58 closed
close action-191
<trackbot> ACTION-191 Raise an issue regarding targetService and the missing fault closed
Eric: Actions 202 still pending - 204, 205 and 206 complete
close action-204
<trackbot> ACTION-204 Apply the resolution for issue 48 closed
close action-205
<trackbot> ACTION-205 Apply the resolution for issue 55 closed
close action-206
<trackbot> ACTION-206 Apply the resolution for the issue described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0016.html closed
Mark: action 207 complete
close action-207
<trackbot> ACTION-207 Finish proposal for issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0017.html closed
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0031.html
Derek: The issue is that faults are missing for the assertions which state that targetService and soapAction must appear in the message
Discussion on proposal in Derek's note
Derek: Concern that fault may be thrown erroneously if soapAction is overridden in the environment or elsewhere
Phil: Ideally we'd word this so that the implementer of the service provider can throw the exception if it needs soapAction, (but it is up to the provider)
Derek: We can say that this is the fault code to use, without being over-prescriptive about the circumstances in which it is used
... TargetService can't be overridden, so the server must throw the fault for targetService if it is missing. but soapAction can be overridden so needs to be optional
action Derek to raise two formal issues for the soapAction and targetService faults
<trackbot> Created ACTION-208 - Raise two formal issues for the soapAction and targetService faults [on Derek Rokicki - due 2010-09-07].
Mark: The proposal needs to mention the new faults in section 2.8
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/207
<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0026.html
Mark: Note superfluous colon should be removed from start of element:
<:tns:TradePriceRequest xmlns:tns="
Peter: Checking - SOAP header elements don't appear in WSDL ?
Phil: Correct
RESOLUTION: Proposal accepted with modified XML
action mark to apply the proposal for issue 61
<trackbot> Created ACTION-209 - Apply the proposal for issue 61 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-09-07].
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/48
<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0028.html
Eric: Fixes unflagged assertions, and deferring to definition of contentType
RESOLUTION: The application of the resolution for Issue-48 has been accepted
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/55
<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0029.html
RESOLUTION: The application of the resolution for Issue-55 has been accepted
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/58
<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0025.html
Changed references to be normative, or informative, and ensured correct format for W3C links
RESOLUTION: The application of the resolution for Issue-58 has been accepted
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/60
<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0030.html
Eric: Addition of complete WSDL sample
... (Generated HTML shows a lot of changes because the new section introduces ToC and other changes )
RESOLUTION: The application of the resolution for Issue-60 has been accepted
Eric: Derek is raising two new issues - once those and the other outstanding issues are complete we will be ready to change the document to PR (by changing the status at the top of the document) and record the changes that were made in CR
<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0011.html
Discussion on Alexey's email
Must follow precedence rules from SOAP/JMS (2.2)
Eric: Delivery mode - should it be case-sensitive?
Discussion conclusion Delivery mode - should be case sensitive
Amy: What about parameter order?
Phil: Only matters if multiple instances are specified
Eric: Out of time - will send out a draft
AOB:
None