Implementer's call notes

<Jonathan> ACTION: Arthur to add wrappers to the schema. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/01-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

<Jonathan> ACTION: Arthur to put parent, features, properties in the base schema. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/01-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]

<Jonathan> ACTION: Jonathan to add sorting of soap modules, http/soap headers. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/01-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]

<Jonathan> ACTION: John to file issue whether {rpc signature} should be OPTIONAL (4.1.1) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/01-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]

date: 2006-06-01

<Jonathan> ACTION: Jonathan to publicize interop event. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/01-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]

Action Item review

?         2005-07-21: Pauld to write a proposal for a working group 
                      report for requirements for schema evolution 
                      following closure of LC124 
?         2006-03-30: Marsh to make XSLT improvements for RDF
                      publication. 
?         2006-04-20: Glen to flesh out a model for runtime test
                      scenarios. 
?         2006-04-27: [interop] Arthur to add the expected assertion
                      violated by each "bad" test case. 
?         2006-05-11: [interop] Chairs to invite XFire to join this 
                      call per Tom Jordahl's suggestion 
?         2006-05-11: [interop] Jonathan to look into how to create 
                      SOAP 1.2 services with .NET. 
DONE      2006-05-11: Arthur to prepare logistics page for interop 
                      event asap
?         2006-05-18: Amy to write a proposal for CR029.
DONE      2006-05-18: Marsh to ping DaveO and Glen about the 
                      proposed resolution to CR032.

June 22 Telecon

Jonathan and Paul will be at WS-I plenary.

Interop calls

Tony reports that issues have arisen during implementation, e.g. meaning of REQUIRED for optional extensions: When is REQUIRED in effect?

CR022

<pauld> Web Services Addressing WSDL Binding now in CR: http://www.w3.org/News/2006#item95

Jonathan reports that the WSDL 2.0 binding for WS-Addressing appears to violate the proposed restriction in CR022

<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to review the WS-A spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/01-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]

Asir: is this a language issue in the WS-A spec?

Jonathan: suggests we add terminology clarification to our spec, e.g. definition of child component
... WS-A WG is not currently meeting but may do so for this topic

CR029

Amy: no progress - do this next week

CR032

Jonathan: contacted Glen and Dave

Glen agrees with the proposal

Leave open for another week to wait for response from Dave

CR036

resolution: accept proposal to change {type definiton} to be Type Definition

CR040

resolution: accept proposal to change {element declaration} to Element Declaration

CR037

Jacek: multipart would be used in MTOM

Jonathan: let's defer further discussion

plh: the spec says other serialization formats are possible

Arthur: I'll look at the spec

CR038

Arthur: I corrected the stylesheet to normalize whitespace

resolution: closed

CR039

<scribe> done

CR041

Jonathan: this is like CR032 so we'll wait for Dave's response

<plh&gt; [[ Multiple message-header fields with the same field-name MAY be present in a message if and only if the entire field-value for that header field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., #(values)]. ]]

<plh&gt; http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec4.html#sec4.2

Jacek: HTTP allows multiple headers but their values get catenated
... we should have a single component per header

resolution: accept proposal to require name to be unique

CR042

resolution: add constraint that QNames in extends attribute must be unique, but need to discuss wording

1) MUST be unique

2) MUST NOT contain duplicates

2) wins!

CR043

resolution: editorial - fix the BNF

CR044

Roberto: the situation for Bindings to different than Interfaces because we need the defaults is support the case of Interface-less Bindings
... we need the computation anyway for interface-less bindings

resolution: add editorial clarification to Part 2 to explain that the component model contains default properties to support interface-less bindings

CR046

Arthur: also a whitespace problem that has been fixed

resolution: done

CR050

Jonathan: the spec is confusing since the extension if optional but the property is REQUIRED, so how do we interpret REQUIRED extension properties?

Arthur: if the attribute is present in the XML then it must be present in the component model and its value must equal the value specified

Jacek: if an implementation "knows" about safety, but the attribute is absent, what should it return? I suggest false.

Youenn: I agree, the implementation should return false instead of null.

If an extension is supported that it must obey the constraints, so if safety is supported it must be present on all operations.

Need more discussion on how to make the spec clearer about this.