RE: [Minutes] 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference (New issues: XML subsetting, Binary XML, metadata in URIs)

>I didn't receive any pointers.

A search of the XML Protocol WG's xml-dist-app@w3.org email archive for
"DTD" finds the following thread:

why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0159.html

I supplied this URL via IRC during the TAG call but it appears to have
failed to make it into the minutes.

/paulc



Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
<mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com> 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Grosso [mailto:pgrosso@arbortext.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:22 AM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Minutes] 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference (New issues: XML
> subsetting, Binary XML, metadata in URIs)
> 
> 
> 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 23:20:39 UTC