Based on IRC Log
1. Roll Present 11/9 BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham Canon, Herve Ruellan IBM, John Ibbotson IBM, Noah Mendelsohn IBM, David Fallside Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin (scribe) Nokia, Michael Mahan Oracle, Anish Karmarkar SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham W3C, Yves Lafon Excused BEA Systems, David Orchard Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley Regrets IONA Technologies, Suresh Kodichath SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing Absent SAP AG, Volker Wiechers 2. Review of Agenda [Scribe] Call for AOB? [Scribe] None heard 3. Approval of minutes from 12 May 2004 telcon [Scribe] No modifications [Scribe] no objections, minutes approved 4. Review Action Items [Scribe] 2004/05/12: Herve [Scribe] Incorporate Mark's comment into XOP spam by EOW [Scribe] This action is done [Scribe] FAQ -> WG note [Scribe] Mike has sent a new version to Yves. Need's tweaking a bit. But being done. 5. Status Reports [Scribe] Media type registration filed last week [Scribe] MNot asked for approval by IESG. Scott??? found a problem in the draft, lack of Security Considerations section. Scott suggested we put a top level Security Considerations section that refered to the section we DO have in the doc. And resubmitted the draft. [Scribe] Scott asked if MNot wanted this updated draft to be considered by the IESG [Scribe] MNot decided to wait for WG approval [Scribe] New Section 4: refers to existing Security COnsiderations section. [Scribe] Chair calls for any comments... [Scribe] No comments [Scribe] MNot to submit the updated document for approval by IESG [Scribe] Hervé has added the media-type registration template for application/soap_xop+xml to the MTOM document [Scribe] Status of FAQ [Scribe] There was a renaming suggestion [Scribe] New name - XOP Inclusion Mechanism - Frequently Asked Questions [Scribe] Version should be ready for publication very soon [Scribe] We will send the FAQ for publication along with the other LC docs [Scribe] Task force on Media-Type document [Scribe] Anish: There is a new version of the draft checked in. WSD is having a ftf right now. This document is on their agenda for discussion [Scribe] Chair: There is an ednote in the doc that various pieces of the doc support our resoluction to Issue 443 [Scribe] Chair: We have been asked to review "Assigning Media Types to Binary Data in XML" [Scribe] Chair: I'm asking for WG as a whole to review document. And a volunteer to collect response and come back to the WG with an aggregated proposal [Scribe] ACTION: Anish to collect comments from WG on Assigning Media Types to Binary Data document, prepare a summary for XMLP WG and take resulting comments to WSDesc [Scribe] ACTION 2 = WG to review Assigning Media Types to Binary Data document and send comments to xml-dist-app. Due 2004-05-26. 6. Attachments Chair intro: [Scribe] We will go through the various suggested text changes in the agenda [Scribe] Chair will then ask if we can close Rec20 with these changes [Scribe] Chair will then ask if we can close Rec22 which is covered by the resolution of Rec20 [Scribe] First piece of text; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0026.html [Scribe] Breaking into two sentences is appoved without comment. [Scribe] Adding suggested optional sentence is approved. Also add a link to the Binding Framework section where we talk about XML 1.1. [Scribe] Next up - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0029.html [Scribe] Noah, I thought this was about whether the wire format allowed different versions of XML [Scribe] Is that not a reasonable thing to do... [Scribe] ? [Scribe] Noah, I'd like to keep the text [Scribe] Yves, I agree to keep the text [Scribe] Proposed text is: binding, if using a XML serialization, must list the versions of XML [Scribe] used to serialize the infoset, or if it delegates this to other means [Scribe] (like media type description). To preserve interoperability, the list of [Scribe] supported XML version should be exaustive. [Scribe] Proposal is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Apr/0017.html [Scribe] Proposal is to add the text labelled as <new> [Scribe] in the above e-mail [Scribe] Agreed to add Yves addition text as desribed in above e-mail [Scribe] Next up - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004May/0033.html [Scribe] Additional text in above e-mail for Section 4.2 is approved [Scribe] Changes to Section 5 text in above e-mail also approved [Scribe] No changes to Section 7.1.4 [Scribe] Next up - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0034.html [Scribe] MikeM not here at present, so postponing discussion on this e-mail [Scribe] Next - MTOM Comment - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0028.html [Scribe] Changes to Section 3.1 from above e-mail approved [noah] When using the HTTP Transmission Optimization Feature to transmit a SOAP [noah] Envelope Infoset, the XOP Infoset built from the SOAP Envelope Infoset [noah] MUST be serialized as XML 1.0 in the root part of the MIME [noah] Multipart/Related XOP Package. [Scribe] Changes to Section 4.3 - Last paragraph should say "MUST be serialized as application/soap_xop+xml" [Scribe] instead of "MUST be serialized as XML 1.0" [Scribe] Above change ( and other changes to Section 4.3 ) approved [Scribe] Changes to Section 4.3.1.1. [Scribe] Change "The XOP Infoset MUST be serialized using XML 1.0 in the root part of [Scribe] the package. [Scribe] " [Scribe] To "The XOP Infoset MUST be serialized as application/soap_xop+xml in the root part of the package" [Scribe] Above change ( and other changes to 4.3.1.1 ) approved [noah] Here is the net text for section 4.3, which is the previous one we were discussing:When using the HTTP Transmission Optimization Feature to transmit a SOAP [noah] Envelope Infoset, the XOP Infoset built from the SOAP Envelope Infoset [noah] MUST be serialized as application/soap_xop+xml in the root part of the MIME [noah] Multipart/Related XOP Package. [Scribe] Next up - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0031.html [Scribe] Proposed text: [Scribe] "Its [normalized value] MUST be a representation of a URI [Scribe] > (see [RFC 2396]) [Scribe] > referencing the part of the package containing the data [Scribe] > logically included [Scribe] > by the [owner element] (i.e., the xop:Include element [Scribe] > information item). [Scribe] The [normalized value] must be a valid lexical form of the XML Schema [Scribe] > anyURI datatype (ref to XML Schema Datatypes#anyURI).< [noah] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/#anyURI [Scribe] Proposal to accept above text and add a reference to RFC2732. So (see [RFC 2396]) would become (see [RFC2396] as amended by [RFC2732]) [Scribe] Above proposal is accepted [Scribe] Next up - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0034.html [Scribe] Noah's conclusions at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0035.html [Scribe] Gudge is happy to do nothing [Scribe] Noah is also OK with that [Scribe] We will NOT take up these proposed changes. No changes to Part 2 errata [Scribe] Chair: Propose we close Rec20 with reference to our decision of 12 May 2004 regarding XML 1.1 and the above changes to Part 1 errata [Scribe] Rec20 is closed with the above resolution [Scribe] ACTION: JohnIbbotson to send e-mail to xmlp-comments and originator for Rec20. [Scribe] Chair: Any reason to believe we have not just closed Rec22? [Scribe] Chair: Any objection to closing Rec22 on the grounds it is covered by our resolution of Rec20 [Scribe] No objection. So closed [Scribe] ACTION: JohnIbbotson to send e-mail to xmlp-comments and originator for Rec22. [Scribe] Issue 443 - Anish's mail at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004May/0031.html. [Scribe] Anish: ContentType vs MediaType name. ContentType is more appropriate. MediaType doc needs updating [Scribe] Anish: Editor's draft of Media type doc needs to be changed to talk about normalized value ( as a opposed to value ) [Scribe] Anish: Also problem refering to namespace of attribute [Scribe] Yves: We could leave the namespace as TBD and state that the we are waiting for the mediatype document to be published [Scribe] Chair: Can we just use @@@@ and not make any changes to XOP. [Scribe] Anish: There are other changes we need [Scribe] Yves: We could make up a URI and get the media type doc to use it. [Scribe] Chair: prefer to make up a URI [Scribe] Anish: how about http://www.w3.org/2004/05/xmlmime [Scribe] Yves: Sounds OK [Scribe] anish summarizes his other suggested changes [Scribe] Proposal to accept changes in Anish's e-mail. Make up a URI as above. And add an ednote that the URI is not final. [Scribe] above proposal assimes WSDesc make proposed changes to mediatype doc [Scribe] Above proposal is accepted. [Scribe] Chair: With the above proposal accepted we can close Issue 443. [Scribe] Chair: Propose to close Issue 443 - We have the Assigning Media Types to Binary Data in XML document. That provides the xmlmime:ContentType attribute to indicate the media type of content in XML and a schema annotation for indicating acceptable media types in a schema description [Scribe] Above issue is closed without objection [Scribe] ACTION: Anish to send e-mail to xmlp-comments and originator for Issue 443. [Scribe] Next up - Comments on XOP - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004Apr/0051.html [herve] XOP Document - A serialization of the XOP Infoset using any W3C recommendation-level version of XML. [Scribe] mnot: push back against stating an org and a specification level [Scribe] mnot: agree you need to specify which serializations you support [Scribe] noah: But here we are refering to XML, which is from the w3c and we did have a normative reference to XML 1.0 [Scribe] No change [Scribe] Agreed to move Section 2 (XOP Packages) to come after Section 4 [Scribe] Next - Change informative to non-normative WRT reference to the schema. [Scribe] Change approved [Scribe] Next up: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004Apr/0042.html [Scribe] and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004Apr/0043.html [Scribe] General murmers of happiness [Scribe] Changes in above e-mails accepted [Scribe] Next up - proposed e-mail to tag: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004May/0025.html [Scribe] Proposal to send above e-mail to tag and xml-coordination. [Scribe] Above proposal accepted [Scribe] ACTION: MNot to make minor editorial changes to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004May/0025.html and send e-mail to TAG and XML Coordination. Due 2004-05-26 [Scribe] Next up: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0036.html [Scribe] Section 1 change approved [Scribe] Section 3 change already approved [Scribe] Section 3.2 change already approved [Scribe] Above are from Most Important [Scribe] Now from Less Important [Scribe] Section 1 change removed [Scribe] Section 1.1 change resolved [Scribe] Section 2 change agreed. [Scribe] Section 5 change agreed [Scribe] Section 6 changed as amended by Gudge in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0037.html [Scribe] Editorial or minor comments rasied inthis email are left to the editors' discretion [Scribe] MTOM [Scribe] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0038.html [Scribe] Most Important [Scribe] Section 3.2 change agreed [Scribe] Section 4.3.1. Binding specific SOAP fault. [Scribe] We ask yves whether removing the text about allowing a binding to return a fault would mean we could not go from LC to CR ( without going via WD ) [Scribe] Chair: We could put a stement into the spec asking for feedback. [Scribe] Yves: feedback would be OK [Scribe] Chair: Proposal: Make the second bullet "Generate a binding-dependent SOAP fault." a priority feedback item [noah] The bullet as [noah] supplied seems to preclude, for example, sending a SOAP message that [noah] contains an error report showing a fragment with a xop:Include in it. I [noah] would prefer to leave out this bullet, but I do realize that in so doing [noah] we make implementations a bit more complicated, and to handle a quite [noah] obscure case. Still, I don't like the precedent that a SOAP binding can [noah] punt on sending any SOAP envelopes that prove inconvenient. Maybe we [noah] debated this earlier and I forgot? [Scribe] ACTION: Noah to generate text to go in priorty feedback item for Section 4.3.1. Due 2004-05-21. [Scribe] Editorial and minor issues mentioned in the email are left to discretion of editors. [Scribe] ACTION: Editors to incorporate changes for Last Call into the specs by 2004-05-24/25 [Scribe] Chair: Are we ready to request last call for these documents as amended on this call? [Scribe] Any objection to seeking last call? [Scribe] None heard [Scribe] Chair rules it is the will of the WG to seek last call publication [RRSAgent] I see 8 open action items: [RRSAgent] ACTION: Anish to collect comments from WG on Assigning Media Types to Binary Data document, prepare a summary for XMLP WG and take resulting comments to WSDesc [1] [RRSAgent] ACTION: WG to review Assigning Media Types to Binary Data document and send comments to xml-dist-app. Due 2004-05-26. [2] [RRSAgent] ACTION: JohnIbbotson to send e-mail to xmlp-comments and originator for Rec20. [3] [RRSAgent] ACTION: JohnIbbotson to send e-mail to xmlp-comments and originator for Rec22. [4] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Anish to send e-mail to xmlp-comments and originator for Issue 443. [5] [RRSAgent] ACTION: MNot to make minor editorial changes to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004May/0025.html and send e-mail to TAG and XML Coordination. Due 2004-05-26 [6] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Noah to generate text to go in priorty feedback item for Section 4.3.1. Due 2004-05-21. [7] [RRSAgent] ACTION: Editors to incorporate changes for Last Call into the specs by 2004-05-24/25 [8]