See also: IRC log
<johnarwe_> working ahead while Sandy dials.... MSM, any objections to approval of mintues from 8/21?
<johnarwe_> agenda for today http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Aug/0092.html
<MSM> no objection
resolution: minutes of 8/21 conf call approved
john: We will skip AIs because people with AIs are not present.
<johnarwe_> we had a draft last night. ginny responded with a request to add: If an SML-IF consumer supports both mechanisms and the interchange model document it is consuming contains markup for both mechanisms, then the SML-IF consumer MUST use the xml:base mechanism to compute all [base URI] properties in the model document
<johnarwe_> while I think this stmt duplicates content already in the draft, I have zero objection to adding it if doing so helps us achieve consensus.
<johnarwe_> MSM, since you are on IRC only, are you comfortable with accepting the draft with Ginny's amendment as the resolution of 5542 (how to absolutize base uris)?
<johnarwe_> Kumar and Sandy have indicated no objections
Kumar:I am ok with or without it.
<MSM> I am OK with it
<johnarwe_> ok thx
resolution: the draft sent by John with the above sentence added is approved as the fix for 5542.
<johnarwe_> MSM: do you feel we need another needsReview cycle on 5542? It is currently marked needsReview from earlier iterations, but neither Sandy not Kumar believes we need it given that we have hashed out exact text with Ginny on the member alias.
<MSM> If Sandy and Kumar believe the text is OK, I am OK
resolution: remove needsReview keyword from 5542
<johnarwe_> MSM, any objections to accepting new examples drafted by Kumar last night to answer 5600?
john: Kumar sent a diff for 5600 changes.
resolution: the draft sent by Kumar is approved by the WG.
<johnarwe_> For MSM: Sandy instigated a discussion of 5741, as one might conclude from the public alias. As a result, we realized there are two completely different (and divergent) ways to interpret the existing text in SML 4.3 and 4.3.1. We are now finalizing a consolidated proposal... should be ready in next few minutes.
<johnarwe_> final draft of sml 4.3.1 2.a.ii.B: 2. If a target in D cannot be identified based on XML-Schema-determined ID, then it is implementation-defined whether the reference target in D is identified based on other criteria allowed for Shorthand Pointers.
<johnarwe_> sandy, kumar, did I capture your discussion intent correctly?
<johnarwe_> A full proposal for 5741, including the text above, was just mailed both to you directly and to the public alias.
<johnarwe_> the excerpt above is included in those files (pdf + matching doc), but wanted you to have the full "fix" in front of you to eyeball
<johnarwe_> now on the public alias
<MSM> OK, I've read it, and it's fine (with the exception of the missing determiner / definite or indefinite article before "XML-Schema-determined ID").
<johnarwe_> and everyone on the phone is fine with adding either 'the' before XML-Schema...
john: any objections to the draft sent to public alias (subject: "bug 5741 draft")?
<MSM> +1 on "applying ... to D ..."
<johnarwe_> Any desire for needsReview on 5741 from you MSM, using the draft just released + insertion of "the" as above?
<MSM> no need for my part
<johnarwe_> then I think we are up to LC2 vote (woo hoo)
resolution: the draft (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Aug/0104.html) is approved. does not need review after the changes
<johnarwe_> Is anyone UNcomfortable publishing both specs as Last Call working drafts once the editors have incorporated the draft text for 5542, 5600, 5741?
resolution: the WG unanimously approved publishing both specs as Last Call working drafts once the editors have incorporated the draft text for 5542, 5600, 5741.
<johnarwe_> part a: consensus
<johnarwe_> part b: consensus
<johnarwe_> part c: clarified that proposal is for replacing first sentence of former item 6. members want to refine proposal here and now.
<Sandy> Note: D is the document resolved to by the non-fragment part of the URI-reference, as defined in 2.a in 4.3.1.
updated proposal from msm: Note: In the case of SML URI Reference scheme, D is the document resolved to by the non-fragment part of the URI-reference, as defined in 2.a in 4.3.1.
updated proposal from john: Note: In the case of instances of the SML URI Reference scheme, D is the document resolved to by the non-fragment part of the URI-reference, as defined in 2.a in 4.3.1.
<scribe> new part c: replace 188.8.131.52 item 6 by: For a given document D, the element targeted by a scheme instance is obtained by applying the location path in SMLXPath1_SchemeData to the root element of D. The result MUST either be 1 element node or be empty. Otherwise, the XPointer result is an error.
resolution: publication date to be 9/12 after confirming with the webmaster.
... changes defined above approved. mark editorial. change milestone to LC.