- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:32:50 -0700
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Web Service Description Working Group
8 July 2004 telcon
Present:
Erik Ackerman Lexmark
David Booth W3C
Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software
Ugo Corda SeeBeyond
Glen Daniels Sonic Software
Paul Downey British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet Canon
Martin Gudgin Microsoft
Hugo Haas W3C
Tom Jordahl Macromedia
Jacek Kopecky DERI
Amelia Lewis TIBCO
Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
Peter Madziak Agfa-Gevaert N. V.
Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft)
Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle
Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce
Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon
David Orchard BEA Systems
Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft
Jerry Thrasher Lexmark
Asir Vedamuthu webMethods
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
Umit Yalcinalp Oracle
Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
Regrets:
Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems
Mark Nottingham BEA Systems
Bijan Parsia University of Maryland MIND Lab
Arthur Ryman IBM
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda
1. Assign scribe. Lucky minute taker for this week is one of:
Adi Sakala, Umit Yalcinalp, Igor Sedukhin, Dale Moberg,
Paul Downey, Hugo Haas
Paul Downey
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Approval of minutes:
- July 1 [.1]
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0257.html
Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Review of Action items [.1].
PENDING 2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going.
?ED 2004-05-19: Editors to include in the primer an example
that uses MTOM. (Issue 72)
?ED 2004-05-20: Editors to incorporate Hugo's full potato
proposal. (Issue 54)
?ED 2004-05-20: David Orchard to update HTTP binding to
include discussion of how to generate an
accepts header from schema annotations
conformant to the media types extension
document, and to use outputSerialization
based on that information.
?ED 2004-05-21: Editors to add ednotes to the spec to
indicate areas that had contention. (Issue
190)
DONE? [.10] 2004-05-21: DaveO to write up a scenario to motivate path
creation on a per-operation basis. (Issue
190)
?ED 2004-05-27: Editors to add http:faultSerialization
attribute.
DONE [.10] 2004-05-27: DaveO will write up better description of
this issue (189).
?ED 2004-06-10: Editors should correct issues 208, 213,
215, come back to WG if there are any
questions.
DONE [.5] 2004-06-17: Editor action to check that multiple style
values are allowed.
DONE [.5] 2004-06-17: Editors to adopt Mark's proposal for 216, but
reword using MUST.
DONE [.5] 2004-06-17: Editors to incorporate editorial fix addressing
issue 222.
DONE [.5] 2004-06-17: Editors to incorporate proposed resolution for
223 and 224.
?ED 2004-06-17: Editors to incorporate David Booth's clarification
in section 8.3 about what required means on MTOM
feature.
DONE [.11] 2004-06-24: David O will update his proposal for adding
async capability.
DONE [.3, .5] 2004-06-24: [Roberto] to synchronize specs, schema,
pseudo-schema on where f&p can appear.
?ED 2004-06-24: Editors to incorporate Jonathan's resolution
to issue 160.
?ED 2004-06-24: Editors to fix media-type reg frag id link,
per 209.
DONE 2004-07-01: JMarsh to explore Nov 10-12.
DONE [.2] 2004-07-01: DBooth to provide a sample (<x-specref>?)
?ED 2004-07-01: Editors to add cross-references for component
properties, per DBooth's example.
DONE 2004-07-01: Editors to add note pointing out that our SOAP
binding only allows a single element in the
body.
DONE [.4] 2004-07-01: Umit to write up a proposal on 168 by weekend.
DONE [.9] 2004-07-01: JMarsh to contact DaveO on whether issue 195 is
on composition model or on developing a language.
DONE 2004-07-01: DBooth to add sentence in the primer (per issue
197) saying that the scoping rules for
requiredness allow the value of the @required
attribute to be changed, and therefore the
writer should consider whether it is wise to
change a value that was set elsewhere by someone
else.
DONE 2004-07-01: Editors to incorporate Mark's proposals
2004Jun/0195.html and 2004Jun/0199.html, and
a reference to the charmod (Issue 210)
DONE [.8] 2004-07-01: Mark to reword his proposal on 211 to make it
more readable.
DONE 2004-07-01: Editors to incorporate solution proposed in
2004Jun/0276.html including Mark's amendment,
plus note that errors are an open set.
(Issue 218)
DONE 2004-07-01: Editors to include or import defn of "actual
value" from XML Schema. (Issue 219)
DONE [.7] 2004-07-01: MarkN to start a thread on 220 with the intent
to get a proposal by next week.
DONE [.5] 2004-07-01: Editors to incorporate Mark's proposal #1, with
ed license (see Roberto's suggestion) (Issue
225).
DONE [.6] 2004-07-01: MarkN to investigate type wording, to ensure
non-infoset type systems are allowed in
<types> (Issue 225 part 2).
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0018.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0014.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0037.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0059.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0050.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0049.html
[.8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0047.html
[.9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0022.html
[.10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0061.html
[.11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0287.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Administrivia
a. - August 2-4 (London)
Logistics [.1], registration [.2].
- September 14-16 (Toronto) [.3]
- November (West Coast) 8-10 webMethods Sunnyvale, CA.
Poll on moving to 9-11 [.4]
poll for dates for Nov F2F closes Sunday
results on Monday
b. XMLP WG response to our comments [.5, .6]
- Postpone till next week.
postpone talking to XMLP until next week
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/04-08-f2f.htm
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Mar/0064.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004May/0000.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Jul/0008.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0036.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0006.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Task Force Status.
a. Media type description
- 1st Working Draft Published [.1]
b. MTOM/XOP
- Last Call Published [.2]
c. QA & Testing
- Suggested QA plan [.3]
- More details from Arthur [.4]
- Interop bake-off
d. Schema versioning
- Waiting to hear back from Schema on my draft "charter."
- Henry's validate-twice write-up [.5]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-media-types-20040608/
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0052.html
[.3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/att-0029/QA_Oper
ational_Checklist.htm
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0037.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0019.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
6. New Issues. Issues list [.1].
- Consistent placement of <feature> and <property> (Sanjiva) [.2]
- Editorial issues with Part 3 (Hugo) [.3]
- MTOM/XOP support (Umit) [.4]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0267.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0011.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0038.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Editorial issues:
- In the hands of the editors:
208 Misc. editorial comments
213 Refine component model property constraints
215 Clarify rule obviation
- Proposed to go directly to editors without further discussion:
227 Description of Binding Operation component
235 Definition of Fault
231 Clarify "patterns"
232 Differentiate our MEPs from underlying protocol MEPs [.1]
234 Ruleset terminology
226 Cross-binding HTTP features
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0030.html
Marsh: Anybody object to making these issues editorial?
No objection.
RESOLUTION: Issues 227, 235, 231, 232, 234, 226 referred to editors.
ACTION: Editors to deal with issue 227, come back to the WG
with issues if any.
ACTION: Editors to deal with issue 235, come back to the WG
with issues if any.
ACTION: Editors to deal with issue 231, come back to the WG
with issues if any.
ACTION: Editors to deal with issue 232, come back to the WG
with issues if any.
ACTION: Editors to deal with issue 234, come back to the WG
with issues if any.
ACTION: Editors to deal with issue 226, come back to the WG
with issues if any.
------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Issue 177: Normative dependence on XML Schema 1.0 precludes
XML 1.1 [.1]
- Jonathan's proposal [.2]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x177
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0258.html
Umit: All WSDL processors must be able to accept XML 1.1 documents?
Marsh: Friendly amendment XML 1.1 is not a conformance requirement
Umit: Why not rev WSDL for XML 1.1? We have to think what
conformance really means for XML versions - we'll have to
rev the spec anyway when we get new version of schema
Marsh: Nothing we have to do for LC to promise to rev in the
future, any questions on my proposal?
Asir: Can't we raise a LC issue#1 on this issue and await the
outcome from the schema WG.
Tom: Likes Jonathan's proposal
dbooth: If accepted, we should flag this at risk dependent upon
the findings of the schema 1.1 WG
Marsh: Any objections to adopting my proposal?
Umit: Sounds OK so far, but i would like to see this written down
Marsh: We need to adopt this (or not) today, not willing to keep
the issue open longer. Is the amendment clear?
Straw Poll: Adopt 177 with amendments
<Marsh> Yes: 18; 2 Nos (Oracle)
Marsh: Do we have consensus?
yes
RESOLUTION: close issue 177 with Jonathan's modified proposal.
<Marsh> ACTION: Editors to implement resolution to 177 as amended.
------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Issue 228: Should f&p be allowed in more places? [.1]
- Proposal to allow f&p on Interface Faults, Binding Faults,
and Fault References [.2]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x228
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0039.html
Glen: We should document the scope for each place we allow a feature
Marsh: Any objections to adopting this proposal?
<Marsh> Kevin, Tom, Microsoft object.
Straw Poll - adopt proposal for issue 228?
* sanjiva votes yes because even if we are doing something wrong its
good to do it wrong all over consistently rather than haphazardly :-(
<Marsh> Yes: 11, No: 4 (Kevin, Tom, Gudge, JeffSch), Abstains: 7
Marsh: Any objections to recording consensus?
(no)
RESOLUTION: Close issue 228 by adding f&p to Interface Faults, Binding
Faults, and Fault References.
ACTION: Editors to implement resolution to 228
<Marsh> ACTION: Glen to verifiy composition model.
------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Issue 195: Property value merging [.1]
- We have a property composition model [.2]
- We don't have a language that helps navigate properties [.3]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x195
[.2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?cont
ent-type=text/html%3B0charset=utf-8#Property_composition_model
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0040.html
RESOLUTION: close issue 195 with no action.
------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Issue 112: New headers/body style? [.1]
- AD feature proposal (Dave, Glen, Yaron) [.2]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x112
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0225.html
Asir: Has question on the list re: mustUnderstand, 2nd
question - where does this proposal fit (part 4 or note?)
DaveO: First part in part1, then specific features in part3
Marsh: Note means we don't have to write this for LC
Glen: Some of this is normative, right?
<dbooth> q+ to note that this would be defining an extension that
anyone could define and ask if the AD proposal fills an
80/20 need
<jeffsch> What is "part 4"?
<asir> adjuncts
<Marsh> jeffsch: a myth
<asir> collection of built-in features and properties
Glen: Is this just normative or required of all WSDL processors?
<jeffsch> How many "mandatory" features are currently being proposed?
DBooth: A note puts it at the status of any other extension - does
this fill 80/20 need to be in the core spec?
<Gudge> didn't we already *remove* a way to specify headers? (in
Virginia)
<sanjiva> yes we did .. now we're considering putting them back
as a required feature!
<umit> we have made the agreement based on the promise that we
will address ADD. Otherwise, this decision would not be reached
dbooth: 'required' for an extension flags up interoperability problems
Glen: Having one mechanism standardised here improves
interoperability
<TomJ> I didn't like the fact that we removed header in the first
place!
Sanjiva: Doesn't understand concept of having 'required features'
<jeffsch> +1 to Sanjiva that _extensions_ should not be mandatory
Glen: Make it a feature rather than a language thing which may be
too locked down
<jeffsch> What is the concern if the feature is not mandatory?
That some WSDL authors won't see the value of the feature
and fail to use it?
<dbooth> A "required extension" is merely a convenient way for the
WSDL spec writers to define a normative part of the spec.
Sanjiva: Why use extensibility mechanism to define required language
<jeffsch> What is the risk of making any feature non mandatory?
Umit: We're here because we removed the ability to describe headers
Sanjiva: Either we have AD as an optional extension, or we have
'headers' directly in the language
<TomJ> I would support putting headers back in the language -
+1 to Sanjiva
daveo: are you making a proposal, Sanjiva?
<sanjiva> I don't recall having an agreement that removing headers
meant that the AD feature would be a required thing.
Sanjiva: No, we've already removed headers and doesn't like "required
feature"
<prasad> I would support putting headers back as well. Then we can
nail the operation name issue via a header! Which is the
right soln IMO :)
<umit> I would support it as well.
Glen: "required feature" means binding will engage the appropriate
SOAP module
<jeffsch> On which WSDL construct would the proposed 'feature' go?
<dbooth> Straw poll 1: Should the ADD Feature be required of all
conformant WSDL processors?
Glen: Required by default (only need property declaration), or not
<sanjiva> Jeff: I think it goes on <operation> .. but one of the
proponents should indicate where it goes. The proposal
doesn't seem to make that clear.
Asir: Suggest modification - add concept of builtin (predefined)
features
Marsh: This is basically the intent of proposal
daveo: mustUnderstand should be in the abstract defined at the \
interface level.
Glen: Why in the WSDL?
<jeffsch> Would the proposed 'feature' go on
wsdl:interface/wsdl:operation?
Glen: Versioning?! seems a little wierd when you've built an
incompatible extenstion?
<jeffsch> Why would one indicate a SOAP header in wsdl:interface
(versus wsdl:binding)?
Glen: Why not just change the interface and do the whole thing?
DaveO: Well why do we need or even have soap:mustUnderstand?
Glen: mustUnderstand only applies to headers (implicit on whole body)
DaveO: The client might not control the qname of the soap body.
Distributed extensibility
<asir> suggestion: split the question - add proposal, mU, role, ..
Amy: soap:mustUnderstand in the body?
DaveO: Client doesn't control the description of the body - client
has to use soap extensibility mechanism to extend the message
<dbooth> Straw poll v2: Should we adopt the proposed AD Feature (which
MUST be supported by all conformant WSDL processors)?
Sanjiva: Wonders how abstract mustUnderstand maps to other bindings
<GlenD> glend wonders how bodies with arbitrary XML map to other
bindings :)
Marsh: Suggest adopting this proposal and moving mustUnderstand to
another issue
<jeffsch> GlenD: Agreed. AD is a 'how much more' argument.
Umit: There was a friendly amendment for an abstract MU
DaveO: Liked the ad:mustUnderstand amendment
Asir: Doesn't like mustUnderstand and role in the interface
<Marsh> Straw poll: amend proposal to remove mustUnderstand and role
<jeffsch> Given the trouble we have binding rich 'body' to non-SOAP
bindings, how much more trouble will we have binding
'header' to non-SOAP bindings?
<sanjiva> if you can make the requiredness go away I'll support
this .. to me having a required feature doesn't make sense
in general and, in this particular case, its basically
syntactic alternate for @headers which we removed. So
I'd suggest a friendly amendment to make it not be required.
<jeffsch> How should one vote on the straw poll if one does not
support the proposal as a whole?
<GlenD> jeff - abstain, I'd guess, then vote no on the 2nd one
<umit> That is not a friendly amandement Sanjiva :-)
<sanjiva> ok ;-) then you know my vote!
<dbooth> Straw poll v2: Should we adopt the proposed AD Feature
(which MUST be supported by all conformant WSDL processors)?
<jeffsch> Is the 'friendly ammendment' of Sanjiva in play, that
it be made not required?
<Marsh> Yes: 6, No: 6, Abastain: 9
<GlenD> as did Sanjiva
Straw Poll: publish by this WG as a feature - not required for a
conformant processor
<Marsh> Yes: 14; 5 Nos, 3 abstain
<DaveO> so we went from a required soap:header, which we got rid
of because of AD, to an optional feature. yuck.
<sanjiva> Its a feature DaveO .. and you can mark it required if
you want.
<umit> yuck too.
<jeffsch> FWIW, I will still vote against the proposal but will
not object to recording it as the consensus of the group
Straw Poll: motion to adopt proposal as amended
<sanjiva> +1 to JeffSch .. I'll abstain this time :)
<dbooth> Straw poll: Adopt AD proposal as amended (to be not
required of all conformant WSDL processors)?
<sanjiva> And then we have to figure out which spec this is going
into .. but that's a separate question.
<Marsh> Yes: 16, NO: 2, abstain: 4
<Marsh> Consensus to adopt proposal
DBooth: Suggest separate publication as note/part4 to avoid
critical path for LC
<sanjiva> I think this is a new part4 .. just like we have a part
for all the MEPs.
<Marsh> RESOLUTION: Adopt AD proposal as amended (optional,
ad:mustUnderstand).
<Gudge> +1 to having a Part 4
Sanjiva: Suggests separate Features document
DaveO: We just voted on the all the adjustments so why can't it
go in the core spec?
Umit: Part4 would be in the same track for LC ?
<asir> Suggest Part 4: Adjuncts
<sanjiva> +1 to Glen's suggestion to avoid creating new documents.
Glen: Part 2 could be normative extensions?
Hugo: Sounds editorial?
Sanjiva: Quick straw poll on glen's part 2 suggestion?
<jeffsch> What is the downside to a Part 4?
Amy: Anything else that would end up in part 2?
Marsh: operationName?
<GlenD> No real downside but for "yet another document"
<jeffsch> (Not pushing back on features in Part 2 but asking
for clarification.)
<sanjiva> Jeff: The only downside I see is that we'd have to
create yet another doc .. but that's not a real
downside.
<GlenD> SOAP has an "adjuncts" doc for the RPC stuff, the
encoding, and the bindings + features
<sanjiva> So editorial convenience would be to put these in part2
<jeffsch> Agreed. Editors do work that life may be easier for others.
<GlenD> That seems to work well as opposed to four separate docs
Amy: You can create new exchange patterns, so part 2 already
covers "extensions and extensibility" ..
<DaveO> I'm a big -1 on a part 4,5,6,7
<GlenD> +1 to part 2 - I need to disappear for ~5 min
<asir> Ok to part 2
<DaveO> It will be weird to constrain the http binding by the part 2.
ACTION: Editors to add the optional AD feature to Part 2 (Issue 112).
------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Issue 158: Setting HTTP headers in the HTTP binding [.1]
- Postpone? (DaveO, Glen to champion)
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x158
<Marsh> RESOLUTION: Close 158 as subsumed by issue 112.
Hugo: Has been wondering about other HTTP headers such as
content-length ..
<hugo> ACTION: Hugo to send email about AD feature setting HTTP
header it shouldn't set.
------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Issue 225: Non-XML type system extensibility. [.1]
- Mark's revised proposals [.2]
- Mark's proposals for <types> [.3]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x225
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0174.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0050.html
Marsh: Summarises Mark's proposal
<sanjiva> +1 to what Gudge just said .. that's my recollection too.
Gudge: Types that contain any type description not compatible
with elements, then definitions component would have a
new property. Sees no reason to change 'element declarations'
property.
<sanjiva> See
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#othe
r-types
Marsh: Close issue with no action?
<sanjiva> Section 3.2 of the current draft has the words describing
how non-xml type systems will work in WSDL 2.0.
RESOLUTION: close 225 with no action
------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Issue 230: {label} vs. {message label} [.1]
- Proposal to fix as editorial [.2]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x230
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0051.html
RESOLUTION: close 230 with action to editors to adopt Mark's proposal
ACTION: editors to adopt MarkN's resolution for issue 230
------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Issue 220: Document interface extension semantics [.1]
- Editorial directions [.2]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x220
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0049.html
DaveO: What does interface extension mean? mark is right - it's
spread across several documents. i prefer consolidation
Kevin: Also prefers consolidation
* pauld was there an action there?
RESOLUTION: Editorial.
ACTION: Editors to incorporate issue 220, come back to WG with any
issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Issue 233: Dynamically override Fault destination? [.1]
- Proposal to allow faults to be retargeted [.2]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x220
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0052.html
Umit: Intention here is unclear WRT delivery of a message
- fault message may not be delivered to the same target node
Amy: We cannot guarantee delivery of a fault
DBooth: We don't need to do anything here - already covered by
semantics of extensions ..
Amy: Thinks we can clarify this by an informative note or part
2 could describe how various extensions may effect message
delivery including delivery of faults
RESOLUTION 233: amy's proposal accepted
ACTION: editors to adopt Amy's proposal for Issue 233
------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Issue 168: Which operation [.1]
- DBooth revived the thread at [.2]
- Analysis at [.3]
- Umit's proposal [.4]
- Paul's related question about faulst [.5]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x168
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0112.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0300.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0037.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0043.html
Postponed.
------------------------------------------------------------------
18. webMethod issues:
- Issue 229: useOperationWebMethod proposal [.1]
- DaveO's proposal [.2]
- Issue 169: Syntax for webMethod - property or attribute? [.3]
- Proposal [.4]
- Atom WSDL binding example [.5]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x229
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0288.html
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x169
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0060.html
[.5] http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2004/07/05/atom_03_wsdl_20
Postponed.
------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Issue 189: Binding message content to URI [.1]
- Issue details from DaveO [.2]
- Omitting content
- Attributes
- QNames
- ATOM WSDL example [.3]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x189
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0061.html
[.3] http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2004/07/05/atom_03_wsdl_20
Postponed.
------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Issue 130: Need async request/response HTTP binding [.1]
- WG in favor of adding such a MEP, with some expressing a desire
that this be as lightweight as possible.
- Revived proposal from DaveO [.2]
- Sanjiva's alternative [.3]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x130
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0287.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0040.html
Postponed.
------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Issue 135: WSDL Specification readability (editorial) [.1]
- Proposed resolution from Yaron [.2]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x135
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0059.html
DBooth: Thinks it's not worth the effort. My work predated Yaron's
proposal.
DaveO: Likes Yaron's proposal after working on part 3
<sanjiva> I'm -1 for making any drastic editorial changes at this time!
DBooth: This would translate into a lot of editorial work - what's
the cost (v) benefit?
DaveO: Volunteers working on part 3
Amy: Worries about duplication making the document ambiguous
Yaron's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0059.html
Straw poll: adopt Yaron's proposal?
Yes: 1, No: 11, Abstain: 10
RESOLUTION: close issue 135 with no action
------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Issue 211: Omit interface message in binding? [.1]
- Mark's proposal [.2]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x211
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0047.html
<jeffsch> +1 that operations may be implicitly bound
<umit> Me well, it forces to use the full path to get rm, so
you know what you are doing :-)
<jeffsch> but that all operations must be bound
<Marsh> Amy: Clarify that every message in every operation must be
bound.
Marsh: Take this back to the list since we're out of time
------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Next steps
- Closing issues list on Parts 1, 2, 3 except to editorial issues.
- Email votes on any outstanding items?
- Last Call Schedule:
- July 15th (90 min telcon):
Editors complete editorial work for WG review.
Disposition of any outstanding editorial issues
- July 22nd (90 min or less telcon):
Approval of Last Call drafts.
- July 26th (aka May 87th) WSDL 2.0 Last Call publication.
- July 29th (no telcon)
Marsh: we still have 4 big topics remaining, feels like we've
slipped a week, so 2 hours again next week
Adjourned
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 14:47:27 UTC