W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

RE: Minutes, 8 July 2004 WS Desc telcon

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:25:26 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA2043B0BED@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Mark wrote:
> The minutes don't state what the scope of this decision was; was 225
> closed without *further* action (i.e., the first and third proposals
in
> the referenced e-mails were accepted last week; were those decisions
> overturned?) or was it just that the change to <types> voted down?

We only addressed Part 2 - Parts 1 and 3 remain accepted.  Part 2 was
closed without action implying that <types> will not be renamed to
<elements>.

> I'm confused because my second proposal -- which should have been on
> the table here -- didn't mention the 'element declarations' property
at
> all; it was a simple syntactic change to the Infoset representation of
> the component model.

I agree the discussion on this point seems a bit random from the
minutes.  I think this was just rehashing the already accepted Part 1 of
your proposal.  It is recorded as implemented already
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0059.html).
Since there was some editorial license involved, you might want to check
that the resolution was incorporated to your satisfaction.

> Could someone please clarify what happened, since the WG decided to
> close this issue when I wasn't on the call?

As I recall, your presence would not have altered the strong sentiment
not to rename <types> at this point :-).

> Thanks.
> 
> 
> On Jul 8, 2004, at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> 
> > 13. Issue 225: Non-XML type system extensibility. [.1]
> >   - Mark's revised proposals [.2]
> >   - Mark's proposals for <types> [.3]
> >
> > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x225
> > [.2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0174.html
> > [.3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0050.html
> >
> > Marsh:  Summarises Mark's proposal
> > <sanjiva> +1 to what Gudge just said .. that's my recollection too.
> > Gudge:  Types that contain any type description not compatible
> >         with elements, then definitions component would have a
> >         new property.  Sees no reason to change 'element
declarations'
> >         property.
> > <sanjiva> See
> > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/
> > wsdl20.html#othe
> > r-types
> > Marsh:  Close issue with no action?
> > <sanjiva> Section 3.2 of the current draft has the words describing
> >           how non-xml type systems will work in WSDL 2.0.
> > RESOLUTION: close 225 with no action
> >
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 17:25:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT