See also: IRC log
<johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/att-0018/20090309-sml-minutes.html (different value vs agenda!)
RESOLUTION: Approved without objection.
John: Nothing new from this group.
John: Zero opened items.
Henry: RE Action 210. Waiting for WG review before closing it.
John: Henry needs to add appropriate URLs for review.
<ht> You could look at e.g. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/sml.html
WG should review these for next week.
<johnarwe_> preceding is URI of Kumar's email soliciting Henry's feedback on specific items
Henry: Will answer the email on this issue.
Voting closed March 12
Henry: eight Responses
... There is one objection: Update references to XML and XML Base.
... Reference section contains a dated reference that is not current version of these specs.
... There are no conformance issues between XML Base 1st and 2nd editions.
Len: Does this objection block acceptance? Otherwise, it does not seem to be critical.
Henry:We can make a case for moving forward without making the change, but the precedent is not good, it could be contentious
Henry:We could say that implementations MUST support XML 4th edition and subsequently others may be supported. This could be contentious.
Sandy: Needs time to think of the consequences of using Xerces for upgrading to 5th edition of XML .
<lencharest> Link to XML 5th ed. with changes from 4th ed. highlighted: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/REC-xml-20081126-review.html
1. Sandy to investigate impact on Xerces of going with XML 5th ED.
2. Henry to investage implications of alternative approaches/check with objector.
3. Microsoft: to check what edition of XML their SML development is based on: what trajectory.
Discussion of next week's call:
1. John may not be able to call in.
2. Len will administer the call.
3. Henry will be attending the AC in Boston, perhaps the best time to pursue discussion of the objector's comment.
No new comments submitted on this.
John: Acknowledges that Ginny may have comments on style.
Len: Comment 1--common naming
convention of SML reference schemes. Call this is SML XLink
... EPR note should say EPR-based Reference Scheme for SML.
<johnarwe_> 4.3.1 SML URI Reference Scheme
John: We should defer until Ginny can attend.
<johnarwe_> preceding = on changing title of xlink note
Comments 2 & 3--following EPR Note.
RESOLUTION: Acceptance of these without objection.
Comment 4 is the same point.
John: Any objection to replacing words with hyperlinks throughout, as per comments 2, 3, & 4?
RESOLUTION: Passed with no objections. Objections should be raised at particular points if any cases present problems.
Comment 5--Merge Note with paragraph
Consensus amongst those present for the merged form for using
... In general, there is no objection to letting the editors work this out amongst themselves, and bring the full wg into it only if the editors are unable to achieve consensus.
Comment 6--This is quoted from XLink spec. No objection to accepting the suggested additional wording for clarity.
Comment 7--no objection; accepted.
Comment 8--Len's suggestion: take each numbered item and each one a subheading and number the subbullets.
John: Last week some members expressed
concern about making the notes look different from the
spec, especially in cases like this where the intent is that the note section
be easily comparable to the analogous spec section.
... How strongly do we want to be parallel to the SML spec.
Kirk: Prefers to keep parallel for readability
John: Suggests that Len get together with the other editors to resolve this issue.
Comment 10--"follow" --> "matches" No objection.
Comment 11--add square brackets to designate a hyperlink on square bracket. No objection.
John: People should look through all comments marked [style], and post their comments to the bug. If no comments are posted by the next meeting, that will indicate acceptance of the Style changes. For those which have consensus (either explicitly positive or implicit) by next week, the working group need not spend call time discussing them they can simply be made.
Comment 13--"schema of U"
<ht> HST: Would like "URI scheme"
John: Replace "schema" with "URI scheme"? No objections.
Comment 15 & 16--Rewording from SML spec
Henry: Wants to look at the text.
John: SML does not define [base URI], because (aside from the interchange case covered by SML-IF) how an implementation calculates the value internally is none of our business.
Henry: We need to give thought where to get the definition of base URI for this note.
Adjournment: 1:32 ET
Last Scribe Date Member Name Regrets pending 2008-05-22 Lynn, James Until further notice 2009-01-08 Smith, Virginia First half of Mondays (probably scribe-exempt) 2009-01-15 Gao, Sandy Second half of Mondays (probably scribe-exempt) 2009-03-02 Pandit, Kumar 2008-03-09 Charest, Len 2009-03-16 Wilson, Kirk Exempt Arwe, John 3/23 Exempt Henry Thompson 3/23