See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: pauld
minutes from 31/3/2005 approved
Glen will post an e-mail describing the compromise proposal on formal objections by next week's call
<Roberto> the proposal is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0038.html
pauld: explains difficulties in binding code to schema, in particular round-tripping hash tables to and from XML . schema
Marsh: seems more like spec than primer material
Tom: seems like could be useful
umit: maybe we should involve people from jaxb
marsh: maybe we could publish
this as a note
... could gain more interest
pauld: prefers idea of note, could be more open to review by people from, say JAXB, Castor etc
marsh: could be helpful for
scheduling WG work
... could be taken as a member submission
<scribe> ACTION: pauld to make a proposal on the packaging of the schema examples by 2005-04-13 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/07-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
discussion of Berlin, could we meet later on the monday?
<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to look at adjustments to the Memorial Day meeting schedule. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/07-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
hugo: created registration page for Berlin
marsh: decision to drop schema examples from the primer and pubish as a separate note
dbooth: now working on the primer
before leaving the group end of next week
... will attempt to dial-in for a review at the next f2f
Marsh: we lost umit and Anish has to drop off .. skipping it
hugo: explains his soap modules proposal
glen: doesn't think soap headers
and modules are all that similar
... semantics are different .. headers are about putting data items in a message, modules imply more functionality
anish: also many to one mapping between headers and modules
marsh: not sure why that difference prevents them being used in different places
asir: one of the rules i wrote up for LC76b was to prevent multiple declarations to simplify composition
daveo: you might be targetting things at different roles
hugo: proposal linked from issues list is not the one we adopted
asir: we made some tweeks to the proposal
marsh: maybe someone would like to raise another issue on why we're restricting them to be unique
roberto: soap module can appear on a binding so as to effect multiple operations? seems like currently we allow modules every where (seems correct) except on a faultref (which seems wrong)
asir: timing issue, part 1 wasn't ready when i wrote my proposal and predates faultrefs
roberto: should allow a soap module inside a binding fault, since we allow it in infault and outfault anyway
tom: why do we allow a list of qnames?
hugo: need to review this in my proposal
tom: we shouldn't allow this given iheader is already repeatable
asir: thinks editorial draft is wrong
tom: cannot see the use-case for specifying a header that only comes on an outfault on a single operation
glen: that's just the way it is as certain operations may require extra headers, eg. some secured others not
tom: seems too flexible, esp for
language bindings. seems odd that you'd occasionally want to
put a header in a fault
... this is going to be difficult to implement.
glen: semantics may change
dependent on the operation
... most useful place for soap headers in individual message references (apart from the garbage can)
asir: can live with tom's
... matches proposal agreed at the f2f
hugo: made the proposal to realign soap modules with headers but didn't want to reopen other issues. willing to withdraw my proposal
marsh: anyone object ot adding
soap module to the binding fault?
... get rid of list of qnames and not allowing soap header in the infault /outfault.
... let's finish this non-controversial editorial work before discussing this again
discussion of how HTTP reasonPhrase works
asir: suggests possible symetric use of reason from soap binding
tom: ship it!
RESOLUTION: accept daveo's reasonPhrase proposal for LC47
general bafflement why ';' is the default separator in XForms, most WG members prefer '&'
RESOLUTION: accept proposal for LC69a using '&' as a default separator highlighting difference to XForms WG
daveo: outlines his proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0005.html
<Marsh> <town xmlns="URI-for-ns1">Fréjus</town>
<Marsh> <date xmlns="URI-for-ns2">2004-01-16</date>
daveo: my preference is for option#3
asir: webMethods has an implementation for HTTP binding in WSDL 1.1 sequence must contain element names whose target namespace is absent.
<Marsh> (Change from "local" to "unqualified".)
<asir> option #4 is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0032.html
daveo: languages may have multiple namespaces and resuse the same local name
marsh: prefix is content that needs to be communicated
hugo: how do we enforce this? uri style?
marsh: schema doesn't describe the prefix (if indeed one exists, could be using the default namespace)
daveo: we have to realise that putting things in uris differs to sending infosets
marsh: sadly we're out of time
just as we get into the meat of this
... would like someone to push on option#3 and move the thread forward
<dbooth> DaveO, do you mean that the particular NS prefix that happens to occur in the XML Schema would then be blessed as the "official" NS prefix?
ACTION: hugo to push forward discussion of daveo's proposal option#3 for LC77a by 2005-04-08 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/07-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]