17:57:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sml
17:57:28 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-sml-irc
17:57:29 <Kirk> zakim, aaaa is Kirk
17:57:29 <Zakim> +Kirk; got it
18:00:01 <pratul> pratul has joined #sml
18:00:37 <Zakim> +johnarwe
18:00:55 <Jordan> Jordan has joined #sml
18:00:55 <pratul> agenda is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Nov/0000.html
18:01:10 <johnarwe> zakim, aaaa is Kirk
18:01:10 <Zakim> sorry, johnarwe, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
18:01:29 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
18:01:45 <pratul> zakim, Microsoft is me
18:01:45 <Zakim> +pratul; got it
18:01:47 <Zakim> +Jordan
18:01:56 <ginny> ginny has joined #sml
18:02:00 <Zakim> +Sandy
18:02:56 <Zakim> +??P13
18:04:00 <Valentina> Valentina has joined #sml
18:05:29 <ginny> zakim, ??P13 is Ginny
18:05:29 <Zakim> +Ginny; got it
18:05:57 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
18:05:58 <Kumar> Kumar has joined #sml
18:09:24 <Sandy> meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2007-11-01
18:09:32 <Sandy> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Nov/0000.html
18:09:34 <Zakim> + +1.905.413.aabb
18:09:40 <Zakim> +Zulah_Eckert
18:09:41 <Sandy> chair: Pratul and John
18:09:45 <Sandy> scribe: Sandy Gao
18:09:50 <Sandy> scribenick: Sandy
18:10:08 <Sandy> topic: Approval of minutes from previous meeting
18:10:28 <Valentina> zakim, aabb is me
18:10:28 <Zakim> +Valentina; got it
18:10:49 <zulah> zulah has joined #sml
18:10:51 <Sandy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Oct/att-0217/2007-10-25-sml-minutes.html__x-mac-creator_0__x-mac-type_0
18:11:18 <Sandy> ACTION: John to remember to add link to 10-15 F2F minutes on next week's (11-08) agenda.
18:11:18 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-148 - Remember to add link to 10-15 F2F minutes on next week's (11-08) agenda. [on John Arwe - due 2007-11-08].
18:11:42 <Sandy> RESOLUTION: Oct 25 minutes approved.
18:12:17 <Sandy> topic: Upcoming meetings
18:12:44 <Sandy> Pratul: beginning of the weeks as we asked; please register early.
18:13:35 <Sandy> Pratul: Jan. meeting requires $125 registration fee. Don't know how to pay yet.
18:14:42 <Sandy> topic: bug 4639
18:15:41 <Sandy> Ginny: 4th proposal from Kumar.
18:16:28 <Sandy> Ginny: will update the document. don't think ready to discuss/decide today.
18:17:03 <Sandy> topic: bug 4687
18:17:57 <Sandy> Kumar: propose an amendment to the proposal in comment #4.
18:18:42 <Sandy> Kumar: producers must normalize if there's a DTD; consumers process IF doc normally (including handling a top level DTD).
18:24:41 <MSM> zakim, please call MSM-Office
18:24:41 <Zakim> ok, MSM; the call is being made
18:24:43 <Zakim> +MSM
18:25:31 <Sandy> Sandy: the only thing that's not supported is the schema entity type. all the values will become invalid if the DTD is removed.
18:26:12 <Sandy> Kumar: the unparsed entities can be added to the root DTD
18:27:07 <Sandy> Sandy: then there may be collisions from multiple documents; also when the IF is unpackaged, how to reassign these entities to the individual documents?
18:28:48 <Sandy> Kumar: I think this is a corner case. We can add it later. (the next version of the spec) we don't have time.
18:30:10 <MSM> q+
18:32:38 <Sandy> Pratul: or we can do only 1.2 in comment #4 for producers.
18:33:14 <Sandy> MSM: prefers what's currently in comment #4. am OK with "just base 64".
18:36:56 <Sandy> Kumar: can't live with proposal in comment #4. it may have complications on document signature. and we haven't had time to think through it.
18:38:48 <Valentina> Valentina has joined #sml
18:39:04 <MSM> zakim, who's here?
18:39:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Kirk, johnarwe, pratul, Jordan, Sandy, Ginny, [Microsoft], Valentina, Zulah_Eckert, MSM
18:39:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see Valentina, zulah, Kumar, ginny, Jordan, pratul, RRSAgent, Zakim, Kirk, johnarwe, Sandy, MSM, trackbot-ng
18:39:45 <Sandy> Pratul: straw poll
18:40:03 <MSM> SG: Prefer 1.1 + 1.2 (what's in #4), can live with 1.2 only, not with 1.1 only
18:40:14 <Sandy> Sandy: I like proposal in #4; can live with just 1.2; uncomfortable with just 1.1.
18:40:50 <Sandy> Jordan: no opinion at this point
18:41:23 <Sandy> Kirk: prefer 1.2 only; can live with any other solutions.
18:42:14 <Sandy> Kumar: Prefers 1.1 only. if other options are consisdered, we need to consider other related issues, which requires more time.
18:42:32 <Sandy> Valentina: prefer 1.2 only
18:43:02 <Sandy> Ginny: OK with comment #4; also OK with 1.2 only (1.1 is allowed anyway).
18:43:15 <Sandy> Zulah: 1.2 only
18:45:15 <Sandy> Pratul: can we agree on 1.2 only; if there's new information arising from the signature issue, it can be reopened.
18:46:55 <Sandy> Kumar: wants to spend more time on this and report back. not sure what impact this has on the rest of the spec and impl.
18:48:17 <Sandy> Pratul: WG leaning toward 1.2 only. Kumar to point out potential problems.
18:50:03 <Sandy> RESOLUTION: conditional consent for 1.2 only. pending Kumar's research result.
18:50:30 <Zakim> -MSM
18:50:48 <Sandy> Topic: bug 4770
18:51:06 <Sandy> Sandy: working on a proposal. Suggest to discuss next week.
18:52:06 <Sandy> Topic: bug 4978
18:55:14 <Sandy> Kumar: not our business for SML to define how to report schematron errors. we don't even do that for SML errors.
18:56:54 <Sandy> Kumar: and it's not important, and should wait till after other important tasks are done.
18:57:32 <Sandy> John: different WG members may have different views on the importance of these issues.
19:00:19 <Sandy> Pratul: straw poll about importance of this feature. should smlerror:output be kept in the spec?
19:00:48 <Sandy> Jordan: should be taken out.
19:00:55 <Sandy> Kirk: no opinion.
19:01:14 <Sandy> Kumar: drop everything related to smlerr:output.
19:01:55 <Sandy> Sandy: no opinion
19:02:47 <Sandy> Valentina: would help to talk to those who wanted this to understand why they thought it was necessary. don't want to take this out until we know no one needs it.
19:02:52 <Sandy> Ginny: take out
19:04:18 <Sandy> Zulah: no opinion. don't recall any particular use case.
19:05:27 <zulah> the original SML group did not have any strong use cases for this. However there were members who wanted it. My sense is that if someone can demonstrate a strong need via a use case, then we should consider it. However, at this point, we could remove it and reintroduce it if a use case emerges.
19:05:44 <zulah> I'm concerned that we have discussed this on several occasions now and it does waste our time.
19:05:47 <Sandy> Pratul: I wrote this setion. If it helps, I can try to go back and investigate the history and report back.
19:06:27 <Sandy> topic: bug 4995
19:07:00 <Zakim> -Ginny
19:07:23 <Zakim> + +1.530.823.aacc
19:07:25 <Sandy> Kirk: sent a document summarizing the situation.
19:07:41 <Kumar> be back in a minute
19:07:41 <ginny> zakim, aacc is Ginny
19:07:41 <Zakim> +Ginny; got it
19:08:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-sml-minutes.html Sandy
19:13:27 <Sandy> Kumar: comment #4 seems to be based on some assumtions.
19:14:22 <Sandy> Kumar: "scope" is a means, not a goal. the goal can already be achieved with what's currently in the spec.
19:16:23 <Sandy> Sandy: it depends on what the goal is. if it's only validity, then yes, it's already achieved; if the goal is to refer to existing keys, then it's not achieved.
19:21:36 <Sandy> Kumar: goal is "being able to refer key sequences existing in other documents".
19:22:31 <Sandy> Kumar: second assumption: "the schema author writing the key ref knows how to write the key ref".
19:23:39 <Sandy> Kumar: third assumption: "unlike keyref, the schema author of the keyref has no control over how the keys are defined".
19:27:00 <Sandy> Kumar: if i have control over keys and keyrefs, I can put them wherever I find that makes most sense to me.
19:30:23 <Kirk> Unfortunately, I have to start signing off.  My apologies.  Things are gotten "fun".
19:35:17 <Sandy> Ginny: 2 cases. one is keys already exist. if they match, then use them instead of copying them. the other is when the desired keys are not available, then new ones are defined.
19:36:12 <Sandy> Ginny: should cover both these cases. the "scope" proposal covers both cases. copying always sounds problematic.
19:37:14 <Zakim> -Kirk
19:41:24 <Sandy> Pratul: continue discussion in email; pick up next week.
19:43:56 <Sandy> topic: bug 4811
19:48:05 <Sandy> Ginny: is there a difference between conforming SML model and valid SML model?
19:49:00 <Sandy> John: yes.
19:49:56 <Sandy> Kumar: split second half of section 7 to 2 lists. the first contains current 1-4 for conforming; the second contains 5-7 for validity.
19:50:55 <Sandy> Kumar: Then we can adopt Ginny's suggestion.
19:51:28 <Sandy> s/1-4/1-3
19:51:33 <Sandy> s/5-7/4-7
19:57:57 <Zakim> -Zulah_Eckert
19:59:59 <Zakim> -pratul
20:00:48 <Zakim> -Jordan
20:01:36 <Sandy> Sandy: If document criteria requires #ALL, then how can a program running not in #ALL mode be called a conforming validator?
20:01:50 <Sandy> Sandy: will add a comment to the bug entry.
20:02:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-sml-minutes.html Sandy
20:02:11 <Zakim> -Sandy
20:02:12 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
20:02:13 <Zakim> -Valentina
20:02:15 <Zakim> -Ginny
20:02:16 <Zakim> -johnarwe
20:02:18 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended
20:02:19 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.603.334.aaaa, Kirk, johnarwe, pratul, Jordan, Sandy, Ginny, [Microsoft], +1.905.413.aabb, Zulah_Eckert, Valentina, MSM, +1.530.823.aacc
20:02:23 <johnarwe> johnarwe has left #sml
20:02:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-sml-minutes.html Sandy
20:02:36 <Sandy> zakim, bye
20:02:36 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sml
20:02:38 <Sandy> rrsagent, bye
20:02:38 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-sml-actions.rdf :
20:02:38 <RRSAgent> ACTION: John to remember to add link to 10-15 F2F minutes on next week's (11-08) agenda. [1]
20:02:38 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-sml-irc#T18-11-18