- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 12:04:41 -0400
- To: cmsmcq@acm.org, stephane@w3.org, patrick.stickler@nokia.com, sandro@w3.org, kendall@monkeyfist.com, elharo@metalab.unc.edu, dmkarr@earthlink.net, dom@w3.org, srodriguez@bdgsa.net, Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org, bparsia@isr.umd.edu, gk@ninebynine.org, fmanola@acm.org, jacek.kopecky@systinet.com
- Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1085673880.1494.81.camel@seabright>
Dear Reviewer,
The TAG addressed a number of Last Call issues at their recent
face-to-face meeting in Boston [1]. Below is a summary of how the
TAG addressed Last Call issues. Although changes have not yet
been incorporated into the document, I welcome your comments on
the TAG's intended direction. The next draft of the Architecture
Document should be available the first week of June.
If your name is in the To: line of this message, the TAG
discussed an issue that you or your Working Group raised.
Please note that for some issues listed below, further input
from you is requested.
The TAG's Last Call issues list [2] contains this information as
well.
Thank you,
- Ian
Reference Arch Doc: 10 May 2004 Editor's Draft
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/
[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html
==================
Issues addressed
==================
------------------------
Michael Sperberg-McQueen
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#msm2
The TAG has resolved to keep the drop shadow in the first
illustration in the document.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#msm13
The TAG resolved to make the following changes to the document:
1) Include three examples about content negotiation as
proposed by TBL.
2) State clearly that it's an error for representation
providers to provide representations with inconsistent
frag id semantics.
3) Talk about consistency as being in the eye of the
representation provider (not forgetting that users also
have expectations). Thus, the answer to the reviewer's
last question is: the notion of consistency is in the eye
of the representation provider.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#msm14
The TAG agrees with the reviewer regarding the general case,
but it doesn't apply to this specific instance. The TAG does
not feel changes to the document are required.
--------------------------------
XML Schema Working Group
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema13
The TAG agrees with the reviewer that the text does not
communicate why extensibility may not be appropriate in some
cases. Furthermore, the TAG has resolved to delete the phrase
"falling back to default behavior". The Editor expects to
insert a story in the section on extensibility about protocol
extensibility.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema14
Norm Walsh has an action item to write some text to address
schema14. The TAG believes that the related finding include
text that may satisfy the reviewer's concern.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema15
The TAG believes the 10 May 2004 draft addresses the
reviewer's concerns and invites comment from the reviewer.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema17
The TAG resolved to:
- Delete "that can be understood in any context" (Already
done in 10 May 2004 draft.)
- Modify remaining sentence to say: "Namespaces in xml use
URIs in order to obtain the properties of a global
namespace."
- Include a reference to 2.2 URI ownership.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema18
The Editor expects to make changes to point to the XML Schema
spec (possibly with the xsi ns URI in text).
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema20
The TAG believes that the 10 May 2004 draft addresses the
reviewer's concern, with the following changes:
- change fourth bullet in 10 May 2004 draft to read "In
practice, applications may have independent means of
locating identifiers inside a document such as provided
for and specified in the XPointer specification."
- include a reference to section 3.2.
--------------------------------
Device Independent Working Group
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#diwg1
The TAG believes that the reviewer has misunderstood the
the notion of "URI persistence" and would like further
input on desired changes to the 10 May 2004 draft.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#diwg2
The TAG believes that it is useful to indicate that there are
two resources (one Spanish and one Italian) but to add to the
example some discussion of content negotiation.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#diwg4
The TAG that more needs to be stated about trade-offs. The
TAG has created a new general issue mediaTypeManagement-45 [1].
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#mediaTypeManagement-45
------------------------
Patrick Stickler
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler2
It is likely that, in light of changes expected in light
of progress on issue httpRange-14 that there will be
a clarification regarding the definition of "namespace
document".
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler3
The TAG agreed with the Editor's choice not to change
the glossary entry in the 10 May 2004 Draft. The TAG would
like more input from the reviewer on whether the reviewer
is satisfied with how the term is used in context.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler6
The TAG asked the Editor to edit this section to say that:
* It is useful to have a URI for requests and results.
* Here are ways to do so in HTTP...
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler4
The TAG has resolved not to change the text. People SHOULD
provide representations; the community is poorer where
representations are not available.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler7
The Editor believes the reviewer's comments regarding URI
ownership and authoritative metadata are addressed by changes
in the 10 May 2004 draft.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler9
The TAG rejected the text proposed in the 10 May 2004 draft
and asked the Editor to remove this sentence from the
document: "Note also that since dereferencing a URI (e.g.,
using HTTP) does not involve sending a fragment identifier to
a server or other agent, certain access methods (e.g., HTTP
PUT, POST, and DELETE) cannot be used to interact with
secondary resources.""
------------------------
Sandro Hawke
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#hawke1
There was general support for the inclusion of a
visibility principle.
------------------------
Kendall Clark
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#clark1a
The answer to the reviewer's question is "yes to 1." The TAG
believes that no change to the document is required. The
Editor expects to add a reference to RFC2396 in context.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#clark3
The TAG believes the reviewer's question is addressed by
section 3.6.2 of the document; no other changes are
expected at this time.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#clark4a
The TAG believes that the statements say different things and
both are justified; no other changes are
expected at this time.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#clark4b
The Editor expects to incorporate a suggested tweak for
section 2:"Formats that allow content authors to use URIs
instead of local identifiers foster the "network effect": the
value of these formats grows with the size of the deployed
Web."
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#clark5
[See dhm2 below]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#clark6
In line with the reviewer's comments, Chris Lilley will
propose additional text regarding separation of content and
presentation that includes more about tradeoffs.
------------------------
Elliotte Rusty Harold
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#harold1
The TAG resolved to demote the first constraint of section
2.1 to a sentence.
------------------------
David M. Karr
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#karr1
The TAG accepted the Editor's proposal to address this
issue by including a parenthetical explanation of
what the authority component is.
------------------------
Dominique Hazael-Massieux
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#dhm2
The TAG believes that distinguishing "error correction"
(errors that can be corrected as though they never happened)
from "error recovery" (situations where the agent cannot
correct the error) will improve the text. The Editor will
incorporate the change.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#dhm3
The TAG agreed with the reviewer and plans to define
"extended language" and "extension" as the reviewer
suggested.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#dhm4
The TAG asked the Editor to include text about how, in
general, protocols have more resilient interfaces than
software APIs generally have.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#dhm6
The TAG asked the Editor to compress sections 3.4 and 3.4.1
into a single section 3.4. The title of the section will be
"Message semantics".
------------------------
Sergio Rodriguez
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#rodriguez1
The TAG does not believe that Architecture Document needs
to address the reviewer's question.
------------------------
Al Gilman
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#gilman2
The TAG believes that "orthogonal", not "independent" is the
proper term. E.g., the HTTP specification depends on the URI
specification, but they are orthogonal. The TAG also decided
to remove the term "loosely coupled" and to change
"independent" to "may evolve independently."
------------------------
Bijan Parsia
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#parsia7
The TAG agreed to replace the constraint at beginning of
section 2 with a new principle and good practice note.
- [Principle] URI assignment: global naming leads to
beneficial network effects.
- [GPN] It is beneficial to assign a URI to a resource
because then others can then refer to it by URI.
------------------------
Graham Klyne
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne12
The TAG agreed with the reviewer's point, but has decided to
keep the text and clarify it. The TAG resolved to make
the following changes to the 10 May 2004 draft:
- To remove "During a retrieval action" in section 3.3.1
- Delete from "Note..." to end of paragraph (in the
third paragraph after the story).
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne15
The TAG believes that the following minor changes to the
document are sufficient to address the reviewer's concern.
- In 2.2, change to "(for example, to a server manager or
someone who has been delegated part of the URI space on a
given Web server).
- s/authorities servicing URIs/URI owners
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne19
The TAG agreed with the reviewer and plans the following
changes to the 10 May 2004 draft:
- Change third bullet in section 4.2.4 to: "The semantics
of combining RDF documents with multiple vocabularies is
well-defined."
- Delete "and allows text and XML to be used as a data type
values within a statement having clearly defined
semantics." from the same bullet.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne21
Chris Lilley has an action item to draft text to explain that
there's a tradeoff in this situation.
------------------------
Frank Manola
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#manola19
The TAG intends to clarify the text to indicate that parties
who draw conclusions from syntactic analysis of URIs alone do
so at their own risk.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#manola29
The TAG agreed to accept this change, which eliminates the
phrase "language instances": "A format specification SHOULD
provide for version information."
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#manola30
The TAG agreed to delete the sentence beginning "As part of
defining" from section 4.2.3.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#manola31
The TAG believes this issue has been addressed by virtue of
deletion of the text in question (in the 10 May 2004 draft).
------------------------
Jacek Kopecky
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#kopecky3
Ian Jacobs and Chris Lilley have an action item to draft a
proposal to address this issue. (No clear direction from 14
May 2004 minutes, but there was discussion about whether the
content was "designed for presentation".)
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 27 May 2004 12:06:50 UTC