W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > December 2002

XML Subsetting [was: 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference]

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:15:07 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: xmlp-comments@w3.org


At the request of the TAG, I am writing to you about
"SOAP and XML internal subset" aka "XmlProfiles".

The rest of this message is in the form of the 2 Dec 2002
TAG telcon minutes with some comments from me embedded.
The full TAG telcon minutes are available at [1].

>Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:53:11 -0500
>From: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
>To: www-tag@w3.org
>Subject: [Minutes] 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference (New issues: XML subsetting,  Binary XML, metadata in URIs)
>            Minutes of 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference

>  2.1 SOAP and XML internal subset
>   See message from Paul Grosso

Which is at [2].

>   [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.

>   [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.
>          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 [3]
as a request for me to send something to XMLP to ensure that the
TAG can see a full discussion of this issue.  

Therefore please consider this message a request to respond to
my issues as stated in [2].


[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/02-tag-summary
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Nov/0156
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Dec/0020
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 11:15:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:14:14 UTC