Re: [Minutes] 27 Jan 2003 TAG teleconf (httpRange-14, arch doc, IRIEverywhere-27, binaryXML-30, xmlProfiles-29)

Hash: SHA1

/ "Ian B. Jacobs" <> was heard to say:
|            CL: Good idea to pick top three issues and get input. XML id,
|            XML subsetting good.

I'd be happy to prepare some slides on subsetting.

|     [DanCon]
|            Orchard hasn't responded in substance, has he? he only objected
|            on process grounds. i.e. he hasn't sent his technical
|            position/argument, did he?
|     [Ian]
|            DO: I think that there are at least 3 or 4 people who could
|            live with xml:id.
|            TB: I thought we were trying to write a note for the AC on a
|            way to proceed. My sense is that we pretty much agree with NW's
|            draft except for the xml:id part.
|            PC: I thought I saw public pushback on having profiles at all.

I think there has been some pushback.

|     [Ian]
|            See also:
|            [38]
|            ml
|            TB: Mostly I see questions about SOAP and PIs. We could change
|            "I feel strongly that it would be a mistake to introduce a
|            single new feature, or a single change of any sort that would
|            not be completely compatible with XML 1.1, in the work that
|            subsets XML."
|            to
|            "The question remains open..."
|            DC: Seconded.

What question remains open?

|       [38]
|            TB summarizes NW's conclusions.
|            CL: That would mean that you cannot have xml:id; that's not in
|            xml 1.0.
|            TB: 1.1 processors would not know what it means, but wouldn't
|            have any problems with it.
|            SW: I'd like NW to concur with this.
|            DC: I'm happy for him to do that after the fact.
|            TB: My proposal is to ack that NW feels this way.
|            DO: One possibility is to ask the AC what they think; another
|            is to hammer this out further.
|            TB: I think it's cost effective for us to tell the world that
|            we think that there should be an xml 1.1.

Should be a 1.1? That's already in CR. I'm quite confused.

|     [Ian]
|            Action IJ: Change one sentence, sent to XML Activity Lead, cc
|            www-tag.
|            DO: I have some concerns about this; seems like we're pulling a
|            fast one. I think we could do with more discussion about this.
|            Perhaps we could do a straw poll on xml:id.
|            TB: Why don't we accept a new issue on xml:id and get the ball
|            rolling.
|            PC/TB/DO agree.
|     [DanCon]
|            2nded, to accept an issue on xml:id (in case chair is counting
|            toward majority in favor)
|     [Ian]
|            DO: If we treat xml:id as a new issue, then ok to send out.
|            Action DO: Raise new issue about xml:id (separate from
|            xmlProfiles-29).
|            DO: I will raise issue by tomorrow.
|            TB PROPOSED: Close this issue with the sending of this letter.
|            Resolved: Yes.

Darn, I wish I hadn't missed this meeting. Oh, well, I'll read what IJ
posts/has posted.

                                        Be seeing you,

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | Don't despair, not even over the fact that
XML Standards Architect | you don't despair.--Kafka
Web Tech. and Standards |
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | 
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <>


Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 10:17:41 UTC