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 Excused 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 Absent 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 4.3.1.1 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]