See also: IRC log
<plh> Namespace qualified elements tend to produce messages whose interpretation is less ambiguous than those with unqualified elements. The use of unqualified elements is therefore discouraged.
Minutes approved
Review of Action items [.1].
[Interop]
? 2006-11-30: [interop] John Kaputin to create a test case
with "required=false".
? 2006-12-14: [interop] Jonathan to fix transferCodings -
add control group
[WG]
? 2006-09-21: Jonathan to check periodically that SPARQL has
added schemaLocation.
? 2006-12-14: plh to come up with a more detailed proposal for
CR112 if possible
? 2007-01-04: Paul to report back on which test cases in the
WSDL test suite fail the basic patterns, with
suggestions on how to address the issues.
? 2007-01-11: Jean-Jacques to provide more analysis on how
difficult it would be deal with a Policy that
only contains an MTOM policy assertion
DONE [.3] 2007-01-25: Jonathan to forward comments to the author of
the MTOM charter.
DONE [.4] 2007-01-25: Jean-Jacques to develop more concrete suggestions
for expansion of the charter for the XML-P group.
DONE [.5] 2007-01-25: Roberto to suggest more concrete wording for the
spec for CR145.
Current Editorial Action Items
Note: Editorial AIs associated with LC issues recorded at [.2].
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/actions_owner.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-cg/2007Jan/0015.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2007Jan/0015.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Jan/0201.html
Jonathan: JJ, do you prefer to send your comments yourself or through the WG?
JJ: the latter sounds good to me.
Jonathan: ok, sent.
Jonathan: any comments?
Arthur: I reviewed an earlier draft?
Jonathan: do you want to see if any was broken since you last looked?
<charlton> WSDL 1.1 element identifiers document published by WS-Policy WG:http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl11elementidentifiers/
ACTION: Arthur to review the WSDL 1.1 identifier spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/01-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
Jonathan: we were about to limit
the scope last week but wanted Arthur's position
... also, I've proposed an amendment
Roberto: I like it
... would prefer that the namespace be explicitely
mentionned
Arthur: is it clear enough for you to implement?
Jonathan: can you not confirm
that yourself?
... my stylesheet implement has limits as to its exploring
depth
Arthur: in the type section, if see a schema or xs:import, those components get included
Roberto: true for WSDL include
Arthur: not WSDL import
(namespace issue)?
... the only things we exclude are xs:import in an included
schema
... edge case: we allowed top level xs schema with no top level
namespace (issue 45)
... so, we would include those components
... they would all endup in the global no-namespace
schema
... so non ambiguous
Roberto: I agree
PROPOSAL: Roberto's proposal amended by Jonathan email from 31/1/7, plus some editorial license
RESOLUTION: Roberto's proposal amended by Jonathan email from 31/1/7, plus some editorial license
Jonathan: a bit controversial last week
Jacek: even if we use the flag, it would not go to LC
Jonathan: I would be prepared to argue that; don't want to go back to LC
Philippe: it is a change, no doubt, by the letter would have to go to LC, but negative reactions are likely to be low, so would support this option in front of the director
JJ: would prefer to hold resolution until Youenn is back next week
Jonathan: ok, but would like to
continue discussion a little bit so we weed out the
options
... don't like options which don't allow people to %-escape
things if they wish
... what are people's preferences?
Jacek: 3 options: 1. no encoding;
2. full encoding; 3. partial encoding
... 1. no option for Jonathan
... 2. not an option for some
... so 3. looks like the easy option
Jonathan: citing a parameter
allows it's name to be changed; this is orthogonal to
escaping
... often I would like to be able to encode
... option 1 (as per the agenda, not Jacek's above) sounds
better to me
<Roberto> +1 for option 1 in the agenda
STRAWMAN: option 1 (from the agenda)
Jonathan: I suggested a syntax;
but the default should be encoded; so # before a token to
indicate raw instead
... amenable to using a bracket instead
... which character should be encoded? In my proposal for
option 3, very restricted. Maybe I should...
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to provide an enhanced option 1 for issue 117 by next week, using bits from the other proposals as indicated above [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/01-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
Philippe: should use Transfer-encoding instead of Content-encoding
Jonathan: wonder if Dave Orchard thought about other uses than zip
Philippe: Transfer-encoding is a section in the HTTP spec, so covers both
Jonathan: should go to
Transfer-coding header
... close today by moving to Content-encoding; or leave it open
whilst getting feedback
... would rather close this sooner since reason for many reds
in tests
... but a week is reasonnable
Philippe: we could use identity instead
Jonathan: JJ, you don't support gzip as I recall?
JJ: correct
Jacek: does the header have to be present, though? I suspect not
<plh> [[ If the content-coding of an entity is not "identity", then the
<plh> response MUST include a Content-Encoding entity-header
<plh> (Section 14.11) that lists the non-identity content-coding(s) used. ]]
Jonathan: have to stick with gzip and accept some of our tests fail
Jonathan: proposal for a new
feature, has to do with operation dispatch, related to a former
issue using http-location to dispatch
... so, generic binding and HTTP bindings don't work well
together
... hence propose location-default property
PROPOSAL: close with no action
RESOLUTION: as just proposed
Jonathan: add {http location ignore uncited} parameter
Arhtur: how many will we need to add?
Jonathan: this one for now; there's a concrete proposal
Arthur: ok
RESOLUTION: adopt the proposal in the my email
Jonathan: {http location ignore
uncited} and required schema data
... required information may be dropped
... proposal is that if uncited, should be nillable
Arthur: don't quite like nillable
Jonathan: would prefer optional; but if nillable can still operate
<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Jan/0208.html
Arthur: would be ok if using min/maxoccurs
Jonathan: this is my amendment from this week
Asir: nillable is for the content
Arthur: here, if not being sent,
but declared in schema as nillable, proposal is to reinsert the
element and get a value nil=true
... is that equivalent to missing value for optional
element?
... let's say instead element required, but is not present and
has a default value
Asir: the infoset gets augmented
with the default value
... it gets added when the element is present and doesn't have
content
Robertor: value can only be characters
Jonathan: so add or has to have a
default
... property must be defined as nillable, or has a default
value, or has minoccurs=1
Arthur: we should check default
further in the schema spec
... if element missing and has minoccurs=0, don't
reconstitute
... if minoccurs=1 and default value, reconstruct
... would like a deterministic rule, needed for interop
... should say what we get after reconstruction
Jonathan: constraint: can mark both as nillable and have a default value
Arthur: maybe in schema spec already ;-)
Asir: from spec, if nillable, no other constraint
Jacek: from different section: if nillable, and not here, it's nil. If not nillable, and not there, default.
<Roberto> karnaugh map
Roberto: let's take this to the list
ADJOURN