W3C SML Teleconference

16 Mar 2009

See also: IRC log


John, Henry, Len, Kirk, Sandy
Ginny, Kumar
John Arwe
Kirk Wilson



Approval of minutes 3/9

<johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/att-0018/20090309-sml-minutes.html (different value vs agenda!)

RESOLUTION: Approved without objection.

Notes from CG

John: Nothing new from this group.

Action Items.

John: Zero opened items.

Henry: RE Action 210. Waiting for WG review before closing it.

<johnarwe_> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/sml/actions/210

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.

Open Issues

Issue 6480: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6480

<johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/0015.html

<johnarwe_> preceding is URI of Kumar's email soliciting Henry's feedback on specific items

Henry: Will answer the email on this issue.

Status of Response to Recommendation

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.

EPR Note

No new comments submitted on this.

XLink Note

<johnarwe_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=658

John: Acknowledges that Ginny may have comments on style.

Len: Comment 1--common naming convention of SML reference schemes. Call this is SML XLink Scheme.
... 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

RESOLUTION: Consensus amongst those present for the merged form for using "Note".
... 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

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

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