See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Tomj
Minutes are approved with no comments
Review of Action items [.1].
? 2006-09-21: Jonathan to check periodically that SPARQL has
added schemaLocation.
? 2007-01-04: Paul to report back on which test cases in the
WSDL test suite fail the basic patterns, with
suggestions on how to address the issues.
? 2007-01-11: Jean-Jacques to provide more analysis on how
difficult it would be deal with a Policy that
only contains an MTOM policy assertion
DONE [.3] 2007-02-22: Jonathan to put the proposal on the list for us
to double-check.
DONE [.4] 2007-02-22: Jonathan to figure out what characters can be
used as query separators without causing harm.
DONE [.5] 2007-02-22: Jonathan to send a summary of our URI templating
text to the URI list.
DONE [.6] 2007-02-22: Jonathan to start renumbering discussion.
Current Editorial Action Items
Note: Editorial AIs associated with LC issues recorded at [.2].
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/actions_owner.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0193.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0200.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2007Feb/0023.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0204.html
Jonathan reviews his completed actions
Others are not in attendance
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR147
Jack: Tag wants this to be
doable.
... Tag does not have a preference on where the work is done,
WSDL is fine
... Prefers that the extension be removed from WSDL
Tomj: Asks for clarification of issue
Jack: SAWSDL seems like a better place to add the safety
Roberto: Does saWSDL have something we can use today?
Jack: there are hooks
available
... We would move WSDL 2.0 safety to saWSDL spec
... a more suitable group to handle
TomJ: doesn't like the syntax, makes it more complex
<asir> Tom, are you using the safety feature?
No, I am not using it
Jack: Explains to Tom how implementation might work
Roberto: The default behavior in the HTTP binding is a good thing - REST people in particular might like it
Jonathan: agrees that safety does help REST
Jack: saWSDL would specify this in a cleaner way.
Tomj: Does see a complelling reason to remove it from WSDL just because another spec could specify it
Jonathan: saWSDL can use the WSDL2 safety attribute
Janathan: Can we leave the status quo?
Tony: Yes
Jack: Does not object
Jonathan: Any objects to closing CR 147 with no further action? NO
RESOLUTION: Close CR147 with no action
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR021
Jonathan: Feels we have fulfilled this action - tracked through CR
<alewis> +1
Janathan: Proposes we declare success on this
various +1s
RESOLUTION: Close CR021
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan report back to the TAG with status on safety [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/01-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR157
Jonathan: Any objections to adopting the editorial improvements in the issue? No
Question 1: character encoding
Jonathan: Proposal is to do nothing
Tomj: Implicit assumption that characters the MAY be encoded can be encoded
Question 2: Is this clear in the spec?
Tony; Seems like a test suite problem its doing a dumb comparison not a smart one
Discussion about the test suite and how it should behave
Tony: believes nothing wrong with the spec.
Youenn: Its safer to say that you
MUST encode characters
... should make encoding the default with a SHOULD
Discussion about how and why to encode characters
<jkaputin_> reserved = gen-delims / sub-delims
<jkaputin_> gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "@"
<jkaputin_> sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")"
<jkaputin_> / "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "="
<Jonathan> The characters in the range: ALPHA | DIGIT | "-" | "." | "_" | "~"
Proposal: Split the list and move everything after the ~ to a SHOULD section
<Jonathan> "!" | "$" | "'" | "(" | ")" | "*" | "+" | "," | ";" | "=" | ":" | "@" | "?" | "/"
No other comments?
Jonathan: Any objects to adopting the proposal? NO
RESOLUTION: Split the character encoding table to address questions 2 in CR 157
Question 3: Editorial improvements will be adopted
Question 4: Is "&" a harmful character before the "?". If not, we should
add it to the excluded list.
Jonathan: Any object to adding "&" in to the list of SHOULD characters? NO
Question 5: Are ";" and "=" harmful characters before the "?". If so, we
should remove them from the excluded list.
Any objections to doing nothing as they are already in the SHOULD list? NO
<Jonathan> telling me the code isn't valide.
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR156
<youenn> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0216.html
Youenn: explains the issue
Tony: Any comments? (chirp chirp
of crickets...)
... Recommend that ; and & be added as as the seperated
chars
<Jonathan> [a-zA-Z0-9\-\._~!$&'\(\):@/\?\*\+,;]{1,1}
<TonyR> RESOLUTION: accept to close CR156 Jonathan's proposal, as modified by Jacek, with the addition of a NOTE as requested by Youenn (NOTE: semicolon and ampersand most commonly accepted separators)
<Jonathan> [&;a-zA-Z0-9\-\._~!$'\(\):@/\?\*\+,]{1,1}
jonathan: proposes to put it in errata list
Jack: Add errata before we ship?
Jonathan: Yes, it doesn't affect the spec in a meaningful way
RESOLUTION: Put this issue on our errata list
<asir> Jonathan, am wondering if you have to replace the & entity ref with a character reference
Jonathan: working group needs to
vote to PR
... Editorial status looks good
... Primer is ready
... Must build set of documents with new namespace
... implementation status looks good, lots of green for
interchange,
... message level tests are about as green as they are going to
get
... should be good enough to proceed
... Proposes to take a vote to go to PR contingent on the
interop report being updated.
<alewis> tibco +1
+1 to vote
<monica1> wow!
<monica1> :>)
<jkaputin_> woo hoo (for Arthur)
No objections to moving to PR
Do we have permission to publish these three documents as working drafts?
<Jonathan> RESOLUTION: Move Primer, Part 1 and Part 2 to PR.
No objections to publishing extra documents as working drafts at the same time as we do the PR?
No objections
<monica1> sigh
implementors calls will be on demand
Next weeks telcon is on, but will hopefully be canceled if no problems.
<TonyR> No implementor's call next week
discussion about how errata will be handled after WSDL goes away (June 2007).
Jonathan: Idea of having a WS-core group that will handle issues for WSDL and other specs.
Congratulations on Shipping the spec!!!
almost 5 years of effort are complete
<monica1> congrats!