See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Virginia Smith
<scribe> scribenick: ginny
<pratul> Agenda at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Dec/0085.html
Pratul: charter does not allow for a note from WG
Zulah: we voted on this in the last meeting
MSM: disagrees with Pratul interpretation of charter
Kumar: will a non-normative
appendix affect LC?
... is there a degree of non-normative in text?
Kirk: if appendix is a note or appendix, we can make normative statements such as EPR scheme MUST be done this way if you are doing a EPR scheme
MSM: problematic in a Note or appendix
Pratul: advice from W3c staff contact was that our charter allows a note to be created for EPR scheme
John: non-normative appendix or note should work the same way
<MSM> [I apologize if my remarks on last week's call were not wholly clear. From a process point of view, changes to a non-normative appendix can be made after the spec goes to Last Call, without requiring that the document be issued in a new Last Call. I believe I said that clearly last week.
<MSM> In addition, I expressed the view that I think doing it as a Note is more convenient. As an individual member of the WG, I think it's not good practice to issue a Last Call that has material we believe to be unfinished, incomplete, or wrong. That's a general question of good WG practice, though, not a question of the W3C process.]
<MSM> [To answer Kumar's question about the amount of work involved: if the material is the same, presumably the editorial work involved in making it correct is the same, whether the material is included in a non-normative appendix or is used to make up a Note.]
Kumar: objection is not to the note but to the precedent
<Kumar> A comment about my objection to adding EPR as a Note:
<Kumar> We discussed this issue in depth. My objection to the note was based on the fear that our creating a W3C note will set a precedent. This precedent could be used to add more things (as notes or otherwise) later on. Michael clarified that since EPR was there in the member submission and since it exists in the editor's copy today, converting it to a note is not really adding anything new and thus does not add a precedent. If that is true,
<Kumar> I do not have objection to creating an EPR note.
Pratul: does anyone disagree with marking the bug as editorial to create the note
Resolution: Kirk agrees to create the note and we are marking the bug as resolved/fixed
ginny: is this proposal aligned with schema (mentioned in comment #5)
Kumar: not in inheritance of particle restriction
MSM: is problematic; simpler to
say schema author should manually specify the constraint
... logically consistent but cost may be high
Kumar: this bug covers cases not covered in the spec.
<MSM> In XSDL, nillability and default values on local elements in a restriction are not constrained to agree with those for corresponding elements local to the base type.
<MSM> In XSDL, there ARE constraints for the type assigned to the elements.
<MSM> I think that SML would be simpler and thus easier to understand if we made targetType behave the way nillability does.
zulah: doing nothing is not an option here
<MSM> There is additional complexity needed to cover the cases not covered successfully in the current draft; I think it illustrates that the cost/benefit ratio for this constraint is not a good one.
<MSM> If I am alone in feeling this way, I will accede to the will of the group. (I won't "lie down in the road" over it.)
Valentina: has use cases for this; wants to keep it.
<Valentina> MSM I am doing that ( review with Sandy )
Updated scribe list for next meeting Last Scribe Date Member Name Regrets pending 2007-08-30 Lipton, Paul until mid-December 2007 2007-11-12 Wilson, Kirk 2007-11-15 Lynn, James 2007-11-19 Valentina Popescu 2007-11-26 Boucher, Jordan 2007-11-29 Gao, Sandy 2007-12-03 Kumar, Pandit 2007-12-06 Eckert, Zulah 2007-12-10 Smith, Virginia Exempt Arwe, John Exempt Dublish, Pratul Exempt MSM Exempt PH