- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: 04 Aug 2003 18:59:34 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello,
The minutes of the 4 Aug 2003 TAG teleconf are
available as HTML [1] and as text below.
- Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/04-tag-summary.html
=================================================
Minutes of 4 August 2003 TAG teleconference
Nearby: [4]IRC | [5]Teleconference details · [6]issues list ·
[7]www-tag archive
[4] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/04-tagmem-irc.html
[5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/#remote
[6] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/
1. Administrative
1. Roll call: SW (Chair), TB, CL, RF, NW, IJ (Scribe), TBL (end of
call). Regrets: DO, DC, PC
2. Accepted the [8]21 Jul face-to-face meeting minutes.
3. The TAG did not accept the [9]28 Jul teleconf minutes (nobody had
read them).
4. Accepted this [10]agenda, but agreed to continue where Vancouver
walkthrough of Arch Doc left off.
5. Next meeting: 18 August teleconf. Regrets: IJ, TBL. Possible
regrets: DO, PC.
6. SW will be organizing a ftf meeting in Bristol 6-8 Oct, with
teleconf link.
[8] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/21-tag-summary.html
[9] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/28-tag-summary.html
[10] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/14-tag.html
2. Technical
The primary focus of this call was on the [11]1 August 2003 Editor's
Draft of the Arch Doc, including a walkthrough of those section of the
Arch Doc that the TAG had not covered at the Vancouver ftf meeting.
[11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801
Actions related to Architecture Document
Note that section numbers of these action items are with respect to
the [12]draft.
[12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030716.html
Completed actions:
* Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Revise text in section 2.1 about
risk of false negatives in comparing URIs.
* Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Reword the good practice note with
new term for "spelling" based on "character string".
* Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Prune instances of "scheme name"
except when referring to string component before ":"; RF calls
this "scheme component".
* Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Include POST (and other methods)
as examples of deref methods at beginning of 2.5.
* Completed action TB 2003/07/21: Continue Oaxaca story for
beginning of section on messages, showing GET (with details) and
POST (with details). ([13]Done)
* Completed action NW 2003/07/21: Rewrite 3.2.2.3 ([14]Done)
* Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Produce Editor's Draft Weds or
Thurs of next week.
* Completed action TB 2003/07/28: Propose text for architecture
document that distinguishes "information resource" from other
types of "resources". ([15]Done)
* Completed action CL 2003/07/21: Redraw diagram showing
relationship between URI/Resource/Representation with (1) English
words (2) no more "isa" arrows; just label objects.(Done ([16]png,
[17]svg))
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0108.html
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0409.html
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0377.html
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/att-0018/uri-res-rep.png
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/att-0018/uri-res-rep.svgz
Open action items:
* Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 3 (section number in 1 Aug
draft). Section 3 is expected to be short.
* Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of
"[18]Conversations and State" into section to be produced by RF.
* Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about
extensibility related to "when to tunnel".
* Action CL 2003/07/21: Create an illustration of two resources, one
designated by URI without fragment, and one designated by same URI
with fragment...
* Action IJ, CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of
language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.
* Action TBL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement to "URI persistence
...person's mailbox" in 2.6 and continue to revise [19]TBL draft
of section 2.6 based on TAG's 23 July discussion.
* Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5 showing
examples of freenet and other systems.
* Action TB and CL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement sentence in
section 3.2.2.1 regarding advantages of text formats.
[18] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conversations
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/tim
Action items related to SVG spec that have been [20]transferred to the
SVG issues list:
* Action CL 2003/07/21: For SVG 1.2, tighten up language regarding
use of GET for a element/href attribute. Also, ensure that SVG 1.2
is clear on CE vs CTE
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-svg-wg/2003JulSep/0350.html
[Ian]
Review of effect of completed actions
2.1
[21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#identifier
s-comparison
"Applications may apply rules beyond basic string comparison
(e.g., for "http" URIs, the authority component is
case-insensitive) to reduce the risk of false negatives and
positives. Please refer to section 6.3 of [URI] for more
information about reducing the risk of false positives and
negatives.".
Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Reword the good practice note
with new term for "spelling" based on "character string".
"URI characters: If a URI has been assigned to a resource, Web
components SHOULD refer to the resource using the same URI,
character for character."
IJ: What about using "Web component" instead of "agent" change?
CL: Seems ok to me.
TB: I think that's probably worth doing as well. I won't stand
for the term human component! These are people!
Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Prune instances of "scheme
name" except when referring to string component before ":"; RF
calls this "scheme component".
Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Include POST (and other
methods) as examples of deref methods at beginning of 2.5.
NW's new 4.6
[22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#compositio
n
[21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#identifiers-comparison
[22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#composition
CL: Recall that I have an objection to the phrase "final
form"
Continuing where we left off: 4.6
IJ: We last were talking about extensibility at ftf meeting.
TB: I am more and more nervous about 4.6 since topic of
composition is new.
CL: I agree, but we need something to work with. We already
have some (positive and negative) experience.
RF: What about putting this in the "future work" section?
TB: I think that it's fine to point out some of the known
issues. The issues in XML are not yet worked out. Don't be too
sanguine about expanding this much more than is already there.
[Chris]
unless its to enumerate more known problems
[Ian]
4.7 extensibility and versioning.
CL: Swap 4.6 and 4.7
TB: I agree.
NW: Yep
TB: I disagree with definition "A format is extensible if
instances of the format can include terms from other
vocabularies. " There is a lot more than than adding elements.
CL: There is ambiguity about word "Vocabulary."
[Chris]
by that definition xml is not extensible
[Ian]
NW: DO and I have a finding in the work on this. I propose that
we leave this until the finding has moved along.
[Chris]
(which could be fine - xml is a user restrictable vocabulary)
[Ian]
TB: However, I think the second and third called out principles
are excellent and I wouldn't want to lose them.
TB, SW: Delete first principles; it's subsumed.
IJ: How is your finding going in terms of defn of
compatibility?
NW: More prose than algorithm.
[Chris]
instead of M and N, perhaps n, n+1, n-1 ?
[Ian]
IJ: But versions aren't required to be sequential to be
compatible (or not).
4.8. Presentation, Content, and Interaction
CL: I am still working on text for this section. It will be a
summary of long essay I previously sent.
4.9. Hyperlinks
NW: I'd like to change editorially "Allow Web-wide linking, not
just internal document linking."
CL: Split in two.
TB: Yes, split. Does last good practice note belong here or in
XML section?
NW: N3 uses qnames as well.
SW: Do we need to distinguish hyperlinking from other kinds of
linking?
CL: Yes.
IJ: Do we have a defn of hyperlink v. link that is not a
horrible rat hole?
TB, CL: No.
TB: We should ack the fact that much of this section that much
of the text applies to hyperlinks in XML.
IJ: +1 to creating a generic hyperlink section and an
xml-specific hyperlink section.
NW, TB, CL: Yes.
IJ: How does hyperlinking connect to "on the Web"?
[Chris]
are embedded links (images etc) hyperlinks
[Ian]
TB: I don't think we need to have a firm defn of hyperlink in
this document.
CL: Are embedded images hyperlink? Are all hyper links
user-activated?
[Chris]
are all hyperlinks user actuated?
[Ian]
NW: I share SW's concern. I'm happy to break 4.9 in two and
take a stab at defining hyperlink as well.
TB: I think we can get away with "When you go and implement
something you think is a hyperlink, do this..." and we'll be
fine.
4.10. XML-Based Data Formats
CL: I don't like "XML-based".
TB: I have found no better term than XML-based. I suggest
leaving title as is and define what we mean in the first
paragraph.
CL: That's fine by me.
Action TB: Write a definition of "XML-based".
IJ: Does "XML Application" connote something different?
TB: Actually, more commonly it's an XML vocabularly.
[Chris]
I mainly want to exclude 'similar to' xml, like using * instead
of " for delimiting attributes and saying the syntax is 'based
on' xml
[Ian]
TB: In formal terms in the XML spec, "XML application" means
anything that talks to an XML processor. So, SVG is an XML
vocabulary not an XML application.
[Chris]
yes
[Ian]
4.10.1. When to Use an XML-Based Format
TB: Delete that note; this is not crucial to the arch of the
web: "Which XML Specifications make up the XML Family?"
Resolved: Delete the note.
4.10.2. XML Namespaces
TB: We need a consistent formatting when we drop into story
mode. Cite "title" element specifically.
IJ: I also deleted a lot of prose I found confusing. Any good
practice notes belong here?
TB: We need a good practice note in 4.10.2: When designing a
new XML vocabularly, put in its own namespace.
CL: Much more important for elements than attributes.
TB: Given that everyone is wrapping content in SOAP, not having
a namespace is a problem.
CL: Formatting attribs in xsl:fo should have been given a
namespace.
Action NW: Redraft 4.10.2 to include some good practice notes
(e.g., use namespaces!)
4.10.3. Namespace Documents
[Chris]
fot attribute values, especially ones that are inherited
[Ian]
IJ: I added "machine-readable" to good practice note.
[Chris]
Dan googles on the namespace URI and gets back .....
[Ian]
RF: I think "machine-readable" is a meaningless statement.
IJ: In UAAG we talked about "content primarily intended for
people" v. "primarily intended for processors"
RF: Say "optimized for machines."
CL: I think the "unattended" part is the key bit. A DTD is
suitable for unattended processing.
IJ: What about "Optimized for processors"? I'd like to find a
short phrase AND include "unattended" in a definition.
Action IJ: s/machine-readable/something like: optimized for
processors, w/ defn that includes notion that it can be
processed unattended (by a person).
4.10.4. Fragment identifiers and ID semantics
NW: Third para goes to some length to saqy that there is no
semantics for +xml media types. We should note that that may
change if RFC3023 changes. Allude to the fact that we may
someday get there. In para starting "It is common
practice...."; s/DTD validation/validation/
[Chris]
see finding on xmlid-32
[timbl_]
RRSAgent, pointer?
[RRSAgent]
See [23]http://www.w3.org/2003/08/04-tagmem-irc#T20-14-10
[23] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/04-tagmem-irc#T20-14-10
[Norm]
s/DTD// and fix the grammar
:-)
[Chris]
type ID
[Ian]
Action NW: Rewrite para 4 of 4.10.4.
4.10.5. Media Types for XML
[Chris]
norm, see the canonical example
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE foo [
<!ATTLIST foo partnum ID #IMPLIED> ]>
<foo partnum="i54321" bar="toto"/>
[Ian]
4.11. Future Directions for Representations and Formats
[Norm]
Editorially in 4.10.5, check markup for "text/*" in the good
practice note
[Ian]
CL: Put 4.10.5 good practice note at the END of the section.
NW: Yes, much better.
CL: Also be more precise that intermediaries can only transcode
in case of text/xml.
[Norm]
They can transcode text/*, technically, yes?
[Ian]
CL: Furthermore, append "and will cause the document to not be
well-formed."
3. Interaction
[24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#interactio
n
[24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#interaction
[Norm]
There are several more places where I think <code> markup would
improve things
[Ian]
CL: Please shorten 3.0.
IJ: It's all story.
CL: But it collects things and these need to be brough tout.
brought out. There's a diagram here: browser gets octets and
media type; can interpret octets given media type. Talk about
layers here.
IJ: Would these layer be important to the arch?
CL: Yes.
RF: "Some of the headers (for example, 'Transfer-encoding:
identity', which indicates that no compression has been
applied)" There is no "identity" encoding. You would simply not
see any transfer-encoding header. That header field is not just
for compression
IJ: What about "(e.g., Transfer-encoding)"?
RF: Yes, that's fine.
IJ: Other examples you'd like to see in the parens?
RF: No.
CL: I'm fine with only 'Transfer-encoding'.
SW: I am wondering whether we need more intro before the story.
IJ: What about putting 3.1 before the story?
CL: Yes, that lets you use the terms in the story.
RF: Para 3 of Interaction doesn't talk about resource header
fields. E.g., "vary" is about the response, not the
representation.
TBL: Yes, I think we should make that distinction.
[timbl_]
Message, Representation, and Resource
3 things
[Ian]
RF: There are always three things: rep metadata, res metadata,
and message metadata.
IJ: Where should we talk about resource metadata?
RF: Etag is representation. Alternates is resource metadata
[timbl_]
Examples of Resource: Alternates, Vary
Examples of Representation; Etag
[Ian]
SW: Message contains data and metadata. There are three types
of metadata (resource, msg, representation)
[timbl_]
1. Data 2. Metadata
[Ian]
IJ: Before we said that representation includes some of the
representation metadata.
[timbl_]
2.1 message metadata 2.2. represtentaion metadat 2.3
resourcemetadata
[Chris]
message metadata is transitory
message metadata is clearly part of the interaction (only)
resource metadata is not about the representation, so its in
the interaction section also
thus, only representation metadata is in the formats section
[Ian]
RF: I'm going to rewrite the whole section anyway...
TBL: There are more meanings than "about"; metadata describes
relationships.
IJ: I'd prefer slightly longer terms than just "data" since
that leads to "Which data? Message data or representation
data?"
3. Bin
Findings in Progress
* [25]whenToUseGet-7: 9 July 2003 draft of [26]URIs, Addressability,
and the use of HTTP GET and POST
+ DO said he had additional comments at 21 July 2003 ftf
meeting.
+ See [27]comments from Noah
* [28]contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of [29]Client
handling of MIME headers
1. [30]Comments from Roy on charset param
2. [31]Comments from Philipp Hoschka about usability issues when
user involved in error correction
3. [32]Comments from Chris Lilley
* [33]xmlIDSemantics-32:
1. [34]Chris Lilley draft finding.
2. Action CL 2003/06/30: Revise this draft finding with new
input from reviewers. 7 July Deadline.
* [35]contentPresentation-26: Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a
draft finding on content/presentation.
* [36]metadataInURI-31: 8 July 2003 draft of "[37]The use of
Metadata in URIs"
+ Action DO 2003/07/07: Send rationale about why WSDL WG wants
to peek inside the URI.
+ See also [38]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
schemes instead of headers
* [39]abstractComponentRefs-37
+ Action DO 2003/06/23: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask
them for their analysis.
* Action IJ 2003/07/21: Update Deep linking finding (i.e., create a
new revision) with references to [40]German court decision
regarding deep linking. No additional review required since just
an external reference.
* Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn [41]TB apple story into a finding.
[25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
[26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030709.html
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0297.html
[28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
[29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0051.html
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0076.html
[32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0113.html
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
[34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
[35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
[36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31
[38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html
[39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
[40] http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Sort=3&Datum=2003&Art=pm&client=3&Blank=1&nr=26553&id=1058517255.04
[41] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/30/AppleWA
Identifiers ([42]URIEquivalence-15 , [43]IRIEverywhere-27)
[42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
[43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
* [44]URIEquivalence-15
+ SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [45]Tim Bray text has
been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
issue to pending state.
* [46]IRIEverywhere-27
+ Action CL 2003/04/07: Revised position statement on use of
IRIs.
+ Action TBL 2003/04/28: Explain how existing specifications
that handle IRIs are inconsistent. [47]TBL draft not yet
available on www-tag.
+ See TB's [48]proposed step forward on IRI 27.
[44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
[45] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4
[46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
[47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0074.html
[48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html
Qnames, fragments, and media types([49]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6,
[50]fragmentInXML-28, [51]abstractComponentRefs-37, [52]putMediaType-38)
[49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
[50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
[51] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
[52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38
* [53]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
+ Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
desideratum ([54]RQ-23).
* [55]fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML.
1. Connection to content negotiation?
2. Connection to opacity of URIs?
3. No actions associated / no owner.
* [56]abstractComponentRefs-37(discussed [57]above).
* [58]putMediaType-38
[53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
[54] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
[55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
[56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
[57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag.html#findingsInProgress
[58] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38
New and other Issues requested for discussion. ([59]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33,
[60]RDFinXHTML-35, [61]siteData-36 plus possible new issues)
[59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
[60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
[61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36
Existing Issues:
* [62]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
* [63]RDFinXHTML-35
* [64]siteData-36
+ Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36
[62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
[63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
[64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36
Possible New Issues
* [65]Visibility of Web Services, raised by Mark Baker
* [66]Character model conformance, raised by TBL
* [67]Meaning of URIs in RDF documents, raised by TBL
[65] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0069.html
[66] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0009.html
[67] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0022.html
Other issues
* [68]namespaceDocument-8
+ Action TB 2003/04/07: Prepare RDDL Note. Include in status
section that there is TAG consensus that RDDL is a suitable
format for representations of an XML namespace. Clean up
messy section 4 of RDDL draft and investigate and publish a
canonical mapping to RDF.
+ Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue,
pointing to the RDDL Note. See [69]comments from Paul
regarding TB theses.
+ Refer to draft TAG [70]opinion from Tim Bray on the use of
URNs for namespace names.
* [71]uriMediaType-9
+ IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
(see [72]email from Chris Lilley).What's required to close
this issue?
+ Action CL 2003/05/05: Propose CL's three changes to
registration process to Ned Freed. [What forum?]
* [73]HTTPSubstrate-16
+ Action RF 2003/02/06: Write a response to IESG asking whether
the Web services example in the SOAP 1.2 primer is intended
to be excluded from RFC 3205
+ See [74]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
* [75]xlinkScope-23
+ See [76]draft, and [77]SW message to CG chairs.
+ Action CL 2003/06/30: Ping the chairs of those groups asking
for an update on xlinkScope-23.
* [78]binaryXML-30
+ Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on
adding to survey.
+ Action IJ 2003/07/21: Add link from issues list binaryXML-30
to upcoming workshop
+ Next steps to finding? See [79]summary from Chris.
* [80]xmlFunctions-34
+ Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
XML Core work. See [81]email from TimBL capturing some of the
issues.
* [82]charmodReview-17
1. Completed action IJ 2003/07/14: Move issue 17 to pending
rather than resolved.
2. Completed action DC: Remind I18N WG of what we are expecting
regarding issue 17; send this on behalf of the TAG
([83]Done).
[68] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag#namespaceDocument-8
[69] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
[70] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0003.html
[71] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
[72] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html
[73] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
[74] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
[75] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
[76] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
[77] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
[78] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
[79] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
[80] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
[81] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html
[82] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#charmodReview-17
[83] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0052.html
Other actions
* Action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that
actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. IJ and PLH making
substantial progress on this; hope to have something to show in
May.
_________________________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2003/08/04 22:59:02 $
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 18:59:37 UTC