- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:22:11 -0600
- To: www-tag@w3.org
At 19:53 2002 12 02 -0500, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: > W3C | TAG | Previous: 25 Nov teleconf | Next: 9 Dec > 2002 teleconf > > Minutes of 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference > 2.1 SOAP and XML internal subset > [Ian] > DO: I think this is an important arch issue. I > think it should have been sent earlier to XMLP > WG. I agree, but XMLP/SOAP is not my area of expertise, and I have too much else to do, so I did not study the SOAP drafts. Such is the reality of things. The issue came to my consciousness when I realized that the XML Core WG was recommending the use of the internal subset to declare entities, and someone--pointing out that SOAP didn't allow the use of internal subsets--suggested that our solution wouldn't work. My reaction was "well, that's the way things are supposed to work in XML; if we can't rely on being able to recommend that people do things per the XML 1.0 spec, what is the XML Core WG supposed to rely on when responding to such issues." > [Zakim] > DanCon, you wanted to express a preference for > having PaulG/XMLCore make a request to XMLP WG > before we accept this > > [Ian] > DC: If we accept this as an issue, can we > immediately contact both WGs to ensure that they > know they are represented?: One possibility: do > this by email or in a teleconf. I would prefer > that Paul write to the XMLP WG and get their > reply on record. > DO: I think that Paul Grosso should ask the XMLP > WG for their rationale, and that the TAG is > interested in that reply. I believe that Chair > of XMLP WG is interested in providing > information on this topic. > [Ian] > PC: There's a long history on this topic (going > back to Sep 2001, at least, see message on > xml-dist-app) regarding SOAP. I think it is > appropriate to tell Paul G to talk to the XMLP > WG. We can give him some pointers to the public > record. I didn't receive any pointers. > TB Proposal: > > 1. We should officially respond to PaulG saying > that there is some history and that it would > be appropriate to direct his query to the XMLP > WG to ensure that the evidence is brought out > for review. I have still not studied the SOAP WDs, and I still know little about SOAP. I appreciate that the XMLP WG has already spent a lot of time on both the SOAP spec in general and on this issue in particular, so I am not eager to throw a spanner into the works at this late date. However, I have taken the several statements above and Tim's email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Dec/0020 as a request for me to send something to XMLP which I have done--at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Dec/0002 > [Ian] > PC: Wasn't this on the XML Core WG agenda at > some point? > DO: Yes, they are chartered to do this. Do what? > TB: Maybe it suffices to say to the XML Core WG > that we think this should be moved up their list > of priorities. This what? > NW: No one I know of is chomping at the bit to > address this; seems like a lot of work, without > much promise of payoff. If we want this work > done, we should ask the Core WG. > TB: Don't phrase this as "Do XML 2.0". If we > think there's a problem here (and I think > evidence suggests there is), we could profitably > invest some time in how we get a solution. Will > be hard to disentangle tech from process issues. > DO: This issue has also come up in WSA WG. > NW: The major issues here are not technical.: > The Core WG has discussed this. The XML Core WG had a discussion of "futures" at our f2f at the Technical Plenary 2002 February. See http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/02/xml-f2f-20020225-min#future-tasks for the minutes. We have not discussed XML futures in any detail since that time. paul
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 11:23:54 UTC