See also: IRC log
No objections heard.
John: this bug is tracking changes to XML schema and still in editorial queue
Pratul: could add comment to say
our decision in comment 7 stands but other things commented on
are tracked in other bugs.
... bug is really about using sml:ref vs xlink
Kumar: proposal to close this bug with a note that all issues are being tracked by other bugs
Pratul: this is comment #11
Original resolution is in comment #7
<johnarwe> +1 to pratul's suggestion - no reason to annoy him
Pratul: Proposal to add boilerplate text and add note pointing to resolution as in comment #7 and also comment #11; all other issues are being tracked in other bugs
John: rather than refer to comment #7, we should restate it since there is an error there
<Kumar> This bug is about a single issue: why do we need to use sml:ref=true to denote a reference. Comment #7 addressed it fully. That comment has a copy-paste error (a wrong proposal was pasted). To avoid confusion, we have reproduced the correct part of the response from comment# 7 below:
<Kumar> sml:ref="true" identifies an SML reference and is orthogonal to the SML Reference scheme used to carry the address.
<Kumar> The other issues mentioned in parts of the bug text are being tracked separately as 5541, 5542 and 5561 (see comment# 11).
<Kumar> Since the central issue of this bug has been adequately addressed and since we have not received any comment opposing the resolution, we are closing this bug. If you do not agree to this, please add a comment to this bug.
<Kumar> This bug was originally about a single issue: why do we need to use sml:ref=true to denote a reference? Comment #7 addressed it fully. That comment has a copy-paste error (a wrong proposal was pasted). To avoid confusion, we have reproduced the correct part of the response from comment# 7 below:
<Kumar> sml:ref="true" identifies an SML reference and is orthogonal to the SML Reference scheme used to carry the address.
<Kumar> The other issues mentioned in parts of the bug text are being tracked separately as 5541, 5542 and 5561 (see comment# 11).
<Kumar> Since the central issue of this bug has been adequately addressed and since we have not received any comment opposing the resolution, we plan to close this bug. Please review the resolution adopted and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If
<Kumar> you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.
RESOLUTION: Resolution agreed on as written by Kumar above. Remove editorial, add decided, externalComments keywords.
Proposal: Fix per comment #5 and add standard boilerplate text. Add decided keyword.
RESOLUTION: fix per proposal
Pratul: we did not add boilerplate text; we should do that today and add decided keyword
RESOLUTION: agreed on Pratul's proposal; bug updated by Kumar
<johnarwe> +1
RESOLUTION: mark bug as fixed
<Jim> +1
Proposal: add boilerplate text
and add decided keyword
... and also refer to Bug 5520
RESOLUTION: agreed on above proposal
Proposal: add boilerplate text and add decided keyword
<johnarwe> +1
RESOLUTION: agreed to proposal
<johnarwe> (to be clear for the IRC log - speaking on behalf of IBM all day today, chair hat off for the day since no IBM reps available otherwise)
Defer to next call
John: Comment #6 rephrases the question in 2nd to last paragraph. Last paragraph is a rough draft of a proposal.
Kumar: similar to Comment #5,
proposal #1?
... if an element is not schema-valid; SML validator will not
have access to element information required to assess SML
validity. There is variability in schema validation.
John: MSM #1 says "implementations vary" which is weaker that first line of comment #6.
Kumar: we agree that we do not
depend on 'validation attempted'. Value of 'validity' must be
true in order to enforce SML constraints.
... validity must be true for anything to which an SML
constraint is attached.
John: what about when schema validity is not true and an SML constraint is attached to an element?
Discussion to be postponed until next week; continue in email.
RESOLUTION: add boilerplate text endorsing comment #3 and add decided keyword
Proposal: add comment requesting Henry to let us know if the resolution in comment #2 is acceptable
RESOLUTION: agreed on proposal
RESOLUTION: add comment requesting Henry to let us know if the resolution is acceptable
RESOLUTION: add comment requesting Henry to let us know if the resolution is acceptable
RESOLUTION: add boilerplate text and decided keyword
Proposal: Use the term "owner" and reference the definition at http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#infoitem.attribute; also add boilerplate text and decided, editorial keywords
RESOLUTION: proposal accepted
Last Scribe Date Member Name Regrets pending 2008-03-13 Gao, Sandy 2008-04-01 Wilson, Kirk 5/22 2008-04-10 Lynn, James 2008-04-17 McCarthy, Julia 2008-04-24 Kumar, Pandit 2008-05-01 Boucher, Jordan 2008-05-15 Smith, Virginia Exempt Arwe, John Exempt Dublish, Pratul Exempt MSM Exempt PH