W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2002

Re: [Minutes] 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference (New issues: XML subsetting, Binary XML, metadata in URIs)

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:22:11 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021203093134.01f489c0@172.27.10.30>
To: www-tag@w3.org

At 19:53 2002 12 02 -0500, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:

>   W3C | TAG | Previous: 25 Nov teleconf | Next: 9 Dec
>   2002 teleconf
>
>            Minutes of 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference


>  2.1 SOAP and XML internal subset


>   [Ian]
>          DO: I think this is an important arch issue. I
>          think it should have been sent earlier to XMLP
>          WG.

I agree, but XMLP/SOAP is not my area of expertise, and I
have too much else to do, so I did not study the SOAP drafts.
Such is the reality of things.

The issue came to my consciousness when I realized that 
the XML Core WG was recommending the use of the internal
subset to declare entities, and someone--pointing out that SOAP
didn't allow the use of internal subsets--suggested that our
solution wouldn't work.  My reaction was "well, that's the way
things are supposed to work in XML; if we can't rely on being
able to recommend that people do things per the XML 1.0 spec,
what is the XML Core WG supposed to rely on when responding
to such issues."


>   [Zakim]
>          DanCon, you wanted to express a preference for
>          having PaulG/XMLCore make a request to XMLP WG
>          before we accept this
>
>   [Ian]
>          DC: If we accept this as an issue, can we
>          immediately contact both WGs to ensure that they
>          know they are represented?: One possibility: do
>          this by email or in a teleconf. I would prefer
>          that Paul write to the XMLP WG and get their
>          reply on record.

>          DO: I think that Paul Grosso should ask the XMLP
>          WG for their rationale, and that the TAG is
>          interested in that reply. I believe that Chair
>          of XMLP WG is interested in providing
>          information on this topic.


>   [Ian]
>          PC: There's a long history on this topic (going
>          back to Sep 2001, at least, see message on
>          xml-dist-app) regarding SOAP. I think it is
>          appropriate to tell Paul G to talk to the XMLP
>          WG. We can give him some pointers to the public
>          record.

I didn't receive any pointers.

>          TB Proposal:
>
>         1. We should officially respond to PaulG saying
>            that there is some history and that it would
>            be appropriate to direct his query to the XMLP
>            WG to ensure that the evidence is brought out
>            for review.


I have still not studied the SOAP WDs, and I still know little
about SOAP.  I appreciate that the XMLP WG has already spent
a lot of time on both the SOAP spec in general and on this
issue in particular, so I am not eager to throw a spanner
into the works at this late date. 

However, I have taken the several statements above and Tim's email 
at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Dec/0020
as a request for me to send something to XMLP which I have done--at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Dec/0002



>   [Ian]
>          PC: Wasn't this on the XML Core WG agenda at
>          some point?
>          DO: Yes, they are chartered to do this.

Do what?

>          TB: Maybe it suffices to say to the XML Core WG
>          that we think this should be moved up their list
>          of priorities.

This what?

>          NW: No one I know of is chomping at the bit to
>          address this; seems like a lot of work, without
>          much promise of payoff. If we want this work
>          done, we should ask the Core WG.
>          TB: Don't phrase this as "Do XML 2.0". If we
>          think there's a problem here (and I think
>          evidence suggests there is), we could profitably
>          invest some time in how we get a solution. Will
>          be hard to disentangle tech from process issues.
>          DO: This issue has also come up in WSA WG.
>          NW: The major issues here are not technical.:
>          The Core WG has discussed this.

The XML Core WG had a discussion of "futures" at our f2f at
the Technical Plenary 2002 February. See
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/02/xml-f2f-20020225-min#future-tasks
for the minutes.

We have not discussed XML futures in any detail since that time.

paul
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 11:23:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:14 GMT