See also: IRC log
RESOLUTION: approve http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jun/att-0000/20080529-sml-minutes.html as a true record of the meeting on 2008-05-29.
John: please register.
John: we may need to change to either end of the week (Oct 27-31) if CG decides to have meetings in that same week.
Julia: action 188. made some progress, need more time.
Kumar: (just closed one of the actions.) for action 184. Pratul is mainly working on it.
John: Sounds editorial
Kumar: yes
Ginny: duplicate with 5720?
Julia: or 5710?
Ginny: yes 5710.
Julia: we were thinking that 5720 should be a duplication of 5710. neither has anything to do with 5715.
John: proposal is editorial + needsReview.
RESOLUTION: 5715 is editorial + needsReview.
John: editorial or needsAgreement?
Ginny: editorial
Julia: editorial+needsReview. Note in particular that point 7 in comment #3 requires an extensive review.
Ginny: that will be reviewed by the editors. most likely me (Ginny).
John: so the proposal is to fix per comments #3 and #4.
RESOLUTION: mark 5720 as editorial+needsReview; fix per comments #3 and #4.
Julia: should be editorial
Jim: maybe add a non-normative note reflecting conclusions cited in the bug report.
Julia: I can make a suggestion in terms of where that note should go.
<scribe> ACTION: Julia to propose where a note that addresses 5721 should go. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-sml-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-193 - Propose where a note that addresses 5721 should go. [on Julia McCarthy - due 2008-06-12].
RESOLUTION: mark 5721 as needsAgreement; wait for Julia's proposal from action 193.
John: 2 weeks are up. remove "decided" keyword?
RESOLUTION: remove "decided" keyword from bug 5528.
Jim: this has editorial and decided. can "decided" be removed before the editorial action is taken or can the change be made before "decided" is removed?
John: yes. they are tracked
separately.
... should "decided" be removed?
RESOLUTION: remove "decided" keyword from bug 5529.
<MSM> [for what it's worth: The strikethrough font indicates that the status of the bug report is CLOSED.]
<MSM> Andrew Eisenberg closed it (to indicate assent to our resolution) on 2 April]
John: this should have been marked "external" in previous passes.
<johnarwe> 4.2.7 deref() XPath Extension Function
John: Seems the title does not have smlfn:
Ginny: looking at minutes from April 1. I was recommending *not* to fix it.
<ginny> 5598: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5598
<ginny> Add namespace prefix to deref function in section title
<ginny> MSM: Add the word "The"
<ginny> Ginny: recommends not fixing it. Makes title longer. Style objection to fixing the bug.
<ginny> MSM: Prefers to add namespace prefix. (Kirk agrees.)
<ginny> Sandy: We need to add it somewhere. First occurrence of namespace prefix is in section 5.
<ginny> Ginny: We can mention it in the section.
<ginny> Pratul: Proposal: fix according to the bug.
<ginny> John: 4 votes (MSM, Kirk, Pratul, Sandy) to make the change.
<ginny> ... Question is whether we should include "The".
<ginny> The sense of the work group is not to add a "The" just to this title.
<ginny> Ginny: Does not want to change all the titles.
<ginny> RESOLUTION: Fix this bug as per bug and mark as editorial.
John: reopen 5598, remove decided, then "editorial" will take effect.
Kumar: and add "externalComment" and "reviewerSatisfied"
RESOLUTION: reopen 5598, remove "decided", add "externalComment" and "reviewerSatisfied".
John: no change needed; closed is ok. just need to deal with "decided" keyword.
RESOLUTION: for 5599, remove "decided", add "externalComment" and "reviewerSatisfied". no change to the bug status (leave it closed).
John: similar situation to 5598.
RESOLUTION: reopen 5600, remove "decided", add "externalComment" and "reviewerSatisfied".
John: have pending action. stay needsReview
John: already fixed; confirmed by 5/22 minutes.
RESOLUTION: remove "needsReview" from 5635.
RESOLUTION: remove "needsReview" from 4630.
The WG reviewed and approved changes made in comment #2 of 5382 and comment #3 of 5384.
RESOLUTION: remove "needsReview" from 4803, 4819, 4884, 5069, 5112, 5215, 5239, 5248, 5382, 5384, 5404, 5415, 5505.
Ginny: in core, section 2.1, suggest to remove "For example,"
Kumar: confused. does IF define a
schema component property?
... Section 2.1 of IF says "This specification defines some
properties of schema components". this is not correct.
... propose to remove the first 3 sentences from the inserted
paragraph in section 2.1 of IF.
Jim: why the second sentence?
MSM: possible for the spec to change and introduce references to schema component properties?
Ginny: make sense to include the reference convention sentence, just like we list all 2119 keywords but we may not use all of them.
Jim: yes, should keep the reference convention.
<ginny> Proposal: References to properties of schema components are links to the relevant definition, set off with curly braces, for instance {example property}. This is the same convention as that used in the XML schema specification [ XML Schema Structures ]. References to properties of information items as defined in [ XML Information Set ] are notated as links to the relevant section thereof,...
<ginny> ...set off with square brackets, for example [children].
John: then should this be sent back to the editors to make the above suggested changes?
<ginny> The sense of the working group is that we want the text to be 'true' whether or not any such notations are present in the spec or not.
RESOLUTION: remove needsReview from 5499, mark as editorial. add needsReview after changes are made. Change 2.1 of both core and IF, using Ginny's text above as a starting point. The goal is for the revised text to be phrased such that it is 'true' whether or not any such notations are present in the spec or not.
Kumar: proposal is in comment #2. [1] is for core, and [2] is for IF.
Sandy: for core, does bullet 2.a still apply when the URI is "" or "#"?
Kumar: yes
Sandy: then saying "2.b is skipped" is misleading, because the result of applying 2.a produces a URI that's never "" or "#".
Ginny: maybe we should just refer to the RFC, because bullet 2 is consistent with RFC
Kumar: yes, and mark 2.a-2.d as non-normative.
John: RFC discussion about
"same-document reference", specifically "a dereference of a
same-document reference should not result in a new retrieval
action."
... sounds like we need a new proposal. leaving it as
"hasProposal" will make it appear on the agenda next week.
RESOLUTION: leave 5707 as "hasProposal"
Last Scribe Date Member Name Regrets pending 2008-04-17 McCarthy, Julia 2008-04-24 Kumar, Pandit 2008-05-15 Smith, Virginia 2008-05-22 Lynn, James 2008-05-29 Wilson, Kirk 2008-06-05 Gao, Sandy Exempt Arwe, John Exempt Dublish, Pratul Exempt MSM Exempt PH