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: <>
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

>   [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
for the minutes.

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

Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 11:23:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:35 UTC