SML WG teleconference -- 30 Mar 2009

<scribe> Scribe: Len Charest

<scribe> ScribeNick: lencharest

Approval of minutes from 3/23

<johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/att-0035/20090323-sml-minutes.htm

RESOLUTION: Minutes approved

Action Item 210

Henry is reviewing comments submitted by WG members

Henry: I've made the suggested changes related to errors of fact

<johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/0034.html Arwe comments

<johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/0042.html Henry's proposal

Henry: Comments C1-C4 are relevant to historical docs only
... recommend that we do not make these changes to historical docs

RESOLUTION: C1-C4 will not be applied to historical docs

Henry: C1-C4 do not apply to current namespace docs

RESOLUTION: C5 will not be applied to current docs
RESOLUTION: C6 will not be applied to current docs
RESOLUTION: C7 will not be applied to current docs
RESOLUTION: C8 *WILL* be applied to current docs

Henry: C9 must be applied; we cannot publish docs with broken links

No objection from group

RESOLUTION: C9 *WILL* be applied to current docs

John: C10 applies to historical docs only

RESOLUTION: C10 *WILL* be applied to historical docs

John: C11 has already been implemented
... Should we update sml-err namespace docs to fix per C12?

RESOLUTION: Ignore C12 and keep the existing sml-err docs as they are
RESOLUTION: C13 *WILL* be applied to current docs
RESOLUTION: C13 *WILL* be applied to historical docs

Henry: C14 is complete
... C15 is complete

John: Propose we ignore C16

RESOLUTION: Ignore C16

Henry: C17 must be fixed

RESOLUTION: C17 WILL be fixed
RESOLUTION: C18 WILL be fixed

Bug 6480

<johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/0037.html ht email

Kumar: Source XML does in fact produce another XML doc
... in which we need to add by hand the stylesheet ref

Henry: Sounds good. Close the bug.

Kumar: Will update bug to point to email, and close after finishing actions.

XLink Note

Len: We talked through proposed changes last week, but I haven't had time to update the HTML doc. Will have a draft for next week.

EPR Note

Kirk: Should inline references be used with brackets?
... Ginny suggests following W3 style manual.
... See section 7.2 in the manual.

Len: 7.2 deals with citations to specs that appear in the References section of the doc. What about hyperlinks to "terms of art"?

Ginny: Are terms of art mentioned in the manual?

Len: Not that I can find.

Henry: Experience has shown that hyperlinking everything of interest makes docs hard to read

Ginny: SML and SML-IF specs do not use brackets around terms of art.

Len: In that case, I suggest we drop the brackets in order to be consistent with our own specs.

John: The editors please resolve this offline. We need to move on to Rec track items.

Rec track documents

<johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/0038.html ht's email

Henry: I spoke to the AC and pinged the reviewer who submitted the formal objection
... I've proposed language in the references which should resolve the objection
... Implementors MUST support XML 4th edition, MAY support later editions

<johnarwe_> nb: the bug (and erratum) are both on the xml namespaces spec

<johnarwe_> Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Edition), T. Bray,

<johnarwe_> J. Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, and E. Maler, Editors. World Wide

<johnarwe_> Web Consortium, 10 February 1998, revised 16 August 2006. This

<johnarwe_> edition of the XML 1.0 Recommendation

<johnarwe_> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816) was the one current at

<johnarwe_> the time this document went to Candidate Recommendation. The latest

<johnarwe_> version of XML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/.

<johnarwe_> Implementations may follow the edition cited or any later

<johnarwe_> edition(s); it is implementation-defined which.

Len: Suggest slight rewording from "it is implementation-defined which" to "it is implementation-defined which edition(s) are supported by the implementation".
... That's the very last clause in both references.

Ginny: Sandy pointed out that the namespace is the same for 4th and 5th eds.

Henry: Sandy found a bug. An erratum has been issued to fix that.

Ginny: What's the impact of following 5th ed?
... Will a 5th ed. XML processor be able to handle a model authored against 4th ed?

Henry: Yes.

RESOLUTION: Wording in references will be changed per Len's suggestion.

SML WG teleconference

30 Mar 2009

Attendees