See also: IRC log
<Scribe> Minutes accepted
<dbooth> Error in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0243.html
<Scribe> almost, except some misattributions of David Orchard to David Booth
<dbooth> Error in:
<dbooth> [[
<dbooth> Poll: Shall we remove the text pasted above, beginning "The
<dbooth> extension
<dbooth> specification" from Section 3.2
<dbooth> Yes: David Booth, Glen, Jacek
<dbooth> No: Gudge, Yaron, Amy, Bijan, Arthur, Jerry, Asir, Sanjiva
<dbooth> Abstain: Paul, Youenn, Umit
<dbooth> ]]
<dbooth> That should have been David Orchard, not David Booth.
<Scribe> Sanjiva will send email next week on status.
JM: Send tests to mailing list and standard rules govern contribution, to be confirmed.
JM: Start at 8 AM Thurs and Fri.
<Scribe> ACTION: Sanjiva fills in data on logistics page.
<Scribe> Meeting in UK, Move to August?
<Scribe> or last week of July
<pdowney> should know soon, march is end of financial year here ..
<Scribe> Note on privacy needs to be review, Hugo.
<Scribe> Dietmar and Mike Champion left group.
<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0242.html
<Scribe> Request for clarification on Endpoints, qname.
<Scribe> Sanjiva claims there is an explanation already
<Scribe> Unique name within a service "namespace"
<Scribe> Endpoint and Operation names to be similarly treated, marked as editorial
<Scribe> Consider section 2.4.1
<dbooth> [[
<dbooth> That is, this specification does not preclude one from having two distinct Interface Operation components which have the same {name} and {target namespace} properties, as long as they are in different Interface components (with the same {target namespace} property).
<dbooth> ]]
<Scribe> ACTION: editorial clarify 2.4.1 on why no global qname reference
<sanjiva> The above action is to clarify that even though we identify operations & endpoints and other stuff by QName, they are not referencible by QName because those QNames are only unique within that component (within the interface or within the service).
<dbooth> ACTION: Editors to clarify 2.4.1 on why no global qname reference
<Scribe> Issue 115 for Umit postponed
<Scribe> ACTION: JMarsh finds part of spec impacted by 115 andn send mail out to group
<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0059.html
<Scribe> Arthur endorses having XML syntax in text and in examples (Tom J will probably like also)
<Scribe> Jacek proposes a text section rather than appendix (?)
<Scribe> Tom favors reorg to improve readability
<Scribe> Sanjiava acks that infoset speak an acquired taste
<Scribe> schema bashing remarks omitted
<Scribe> Amy defends infoset speak and does not see advantage to email proposal on appendix (I think)
<Scribe> Roberto urges dropping EII AII and focus on component model speak
<Scribe> But urges conserving current format at the end of day
<Scribe> David Orchard thinks stylistic compromise good but concedes difficulty in reaching it
<Scribe> Tom J urges beefing up readable XSLT syntax sections but leave component stuff in place
<Scribe> Tom J notes that spec readability continues to improve
<Scribe> Format conventions might help say J Marsh
<Scribe> Arthur concedes formality but suggests something like style sheets to shift view
<Scribe> Or icons to collapse or expand, Marsh
<Scribe> DavidB says style to support selective style read would be interesting
<Scribe> Asir asks about how this tinkering would impact schedule
<Scribe> JMarsh says editorial and not new issues
<Scribe> Amy unvolunteers for style sheet production
<Scribe> Amy as implementer found precision useful.
<alewis> WSDL 1.1 contains examples, text, and a schema, which are not actually consistent with one another in several places.
<alewis> (to the extent of variant names for attributes and ambiguity in cardinality of elements and attributes)
<Scribe> Poll 1 is whether to refactor by moving text around from 2.x. and ? to another section
<Scribe> or appendix.
<Scribe> Yes 3, No 11, some abstains
<Scribe> No objections to recording consensus as proposal to refactor/move rejected
<Scribe> Poll 2 is to take the effort to experiment with a stylistic option.
<Scribe> No 0, Yes 5, Abstains numerous
<dbooth> +1 to Amy's suggestion
<Scribe> An adhoc group forms to explore J Marsh, D Booth, D Orchard
<Scribe> ACTION: adhoc group forms to explore stylistic rendering plan J Marsh D Booth D Orchard
<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0067.html
Sanjiva: when declaring, use "name" & when referring use "ref". Two changes endorsed
<Scribe> Kevin notes two areas to correct, one was ncname where qname should occur (section ?)
<sanjiva> See http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#Syntax-Summary for the current overall XML syntax
<sanjiva> (I like XML angle bracket syntax too .. :-))
<Scribe> Scribe interrupted locally and missed a bit on the second problem Kevin noted on qname not useful when refereingcing
<Scribe> Tom wonders whether name/ref change is all that helpful
<Scribe> Tom has his wonder resolved.
<Scribe> ACTION: close issue 151 with name to ref changes as found in email 67
<Scribe> ACTION: change label to messagelabel as proposed by Sanjiva
<Scribe> Approve the change to add a Property for Value as proposed by Sanjiva
<sanjiva> Kevin: I just corrected the bug in the binding fault component (should be QName). Thanks for pointing it out.
<sanjiva> ACTION: editors to add a {value} property to the Property component
<Scribe> Two issues: message with empty body? unconstrained content?
<Scribe> Proposal #any or #empty to allowable values in the @element attribute in addition to qnames for GED.
<pdowney> likes the propsal, but reminds the WG '£' is a 'pound' and '#' is a 'hash' or 'number sign' :)
<Scribe> Roberto requests remarks on component model changes that this proposal introduces
<Scribe> ACTION: JMarsh to provide remarks as requested by Roberto on the proposal for empty body/ arbitrary content cases
<Scribe> ACTION: Jacek takes an action that was missed by scribe in closing flurry