W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2002

[Minutes] 26 Aug TAG teleconf (arch doc, RFC3023Charset-21, xlinkScope-23, augmentedInfoset-22,contentPresentation-26)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:45:20 -0400
Message-ID: <3D6AAF80.60409@w3.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org

Hello,

Minutes of the 26 Aug 2002 TAG teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.

  - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/08/26-tag-summary.html
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

===============================================

[1]W3C [2]| TAG | Previous:[3]19 Aug | Next: 30 Aug

   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/08/19-tag-summary

	     Minutes of 26 August 2002 TAG teleconference

Nearby: [4]Teleconference details  [5]issues list  [6]www-tag
archive

   [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/#remote
   [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist
   [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/

1. Administrative

1. Roll call: NW (Chair), IJ (Scribe), DC, DO, TB, RF. Regrets: TBL,
    SW, PC. Absent: CL
2. Accepted [7]19 Aug minutes
3. Accepted this [8]agenda
4. Next meeting: 30 August. 2 September meeting canceled.

   [7] http://www.w3.org/2002/08/19-tag-summary
   [8] http://www.w3.org/2002/08/26-tag

1.2 Completed actions

  * Action IJ 2002/08/19: Put back [Cool] in persistence section of
    Arch document. Remove comment about children and URIs.
  * Action SW and IJ 2002/08/19: Work on some language regarding using
    URI to interact v. specifically to GET. Though not done with SW
    and IJ, there is language to this effect in the 26 August arch
    document.

2. Technical

  * 2.1 [9]Architecture document
  * 2.2 [10]RFC3023Charset-21
  * 2.3 [11]xlinkScope-23
  * 2.4 [12]augmentedInfoset-22
  * 2.5 [13]New issue: contentPresentation-26
  * [14]Postponed

2.1 Architecture document

Comments on [15]26 August draft. See, in particular, [16]comments from
TB. IJ will fix typos listed in that email.

  [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0826-archdoc.html
  [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Aug/0314.html

[Ian]

  Resolved: Move following to 1.3 (limits of the doc): " Some of
  these principles may conflict with current practice, and so
  education and outreach will be required to improve on that
  practice. Other principles may fill in gaps in published
  specifications or may call attention to known weaknesses in
  those specifications."
  TB: About "The FTP scheme is for ftp file names (including DNS
  domain names)", I suggest instead "FTP-accessible data".

  DC: I think mostly for file names. I'd rather keep the part
  people are familiar with.
  [No change]

  TB: I think we need a paragraph saying that RFC2396 defines
  something called a URI Reference. I think we need to ack the
  term "URI reference" just before 2.1.
  Resolved: Accept proposal from TB to ack the term "URI
  reference."

  TB: "2.1 para beginning "Some resources do not have URIs".
  First of all I don't agree, second what's the practical effect
  even if it's true, third
  denumerable means you *can't* give one to every real number.
  Lose the paragraph, it adds no value"
  DC: Maybe a footnote.
  RF: I don't believe that URIs are equivalent to integer
  numbers; they are equivalent to real numbers.
  TB: The space of URIs is countable.
  DC: See [17]Of Infinite Sets in "A Crash Course in the
  Mathematics".
  Resolved: Move "Some resources do not have URIs. URIs are
  denumerable, which means there are enough to give one to every
  real number without collisions, for example." to footnote.

  [17] http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/infapp.htm

  Action IJ and NW: Work on this footnote text.

  Propose to delete "Open Say something here  la what Tim Bray
  said: "Designers SHOULD NOT build a world of resources that
  cannot be identified by URI."?"
  TB: I retract comment that some interactions not through
  representations.
  RF: You POST and PUT through representations.
  DC: Not clear that a POST does.
  RF: There's a representation of the information you're sending.
  I didn't say representation of resource, but representation of
  a form (for example). I'm comfortable with "One interacts with
  a resource through representations of the resource. But there's
  more to it than that (e.g., control data in a request).
  [No change for now]
  TB: Propose to delete " A representation may be full fidelity,
  i.e. a complete description, or it may be partial, i.e.
  describes some aspect of the resource. "
  IJ: I think there may be a place for something like this
  regarding fragments.

  No clear action; IJ may delete current text.

  TB: We haven't defined what a media type is. Are you guaranteed
  to know what it is?
  TB: "2.2.1, 1st para, last sentence. Need introductory words in
  that a representation of a resource is often (usually? always?)
  accompanied by
  supplementary information defined per MIME [reference] called
  its media-type, and then proceed as written."
  TB: s/recursive/successive application of specifications.
  NW: Yes, "successive"

  Resolved: Change "recursive" to "successive".

[DanC]

  I'm no longer following at speed; I don't mind Tim Bray and Ian
  going over these comments like this, but please don't let the
  record indicate that I've endorsed all these changes.

[Ian]

  IJ: Did I miss anything in the example in 2.2.1?
  TB: Seemed ok.

  TB: The following sentence needs a lot of work "Each valid use
  of an absolute URI reference unambiguously identifies one
  resource."
  TB: "following all the other relevant protocol specifications"
  is underspecified.
  DC: Simplest to say "Each absolute URI reference unambiguously
  identifies one resource."
  DC, TB: Yes.
  Resolved: Change that principle (remove "valid") to "Each
  absolute URI reference unambiguously identifies one resource."
  2.3.1. Absolute URI references and context-sensitivity

  TB: I think this text is clearly wrong. I think publishing
  "file:/etc/hosts" on the Web is clearly wrong.
  RF: Why is that?
  TB: You could make the arg that the resource is the list of
  hosts on your computer.
  DC: I think our arch doc should answer this question.
  RF: Roy has a use case (documentation from Apple). Use the news
  URL as an example (e.g., that points to a group); it doesn't
  refer to the group in the universe of net news, but the group
  as viewed by your news server.
  DC: I disagree. If you publish a news URI in the public
  Internet, you should expect it to be used in various contexts.
  RF: Not all newsgroups are global.
  TB:

    1. URIs have varying degrees of context-sensitivity
    2. You need to think carefully about the degree of
       context-sensitivity when you publish a URI.

  IJ: Then add "3. An absolute URI reference SHOULD denote the
  same resource or concept independent of the context(s) in which
  the identifier is used.

  RF: The principle is that they should always refer to the same
  resource.
  Action IJ: Tweak this text to reflect TB and RF comments.
  Resolved. Move "Open: issue deepLinking-25: What to say in
  defense of principle that deep linking is not an illegal act?"
  to 2.2

[DanC]

  [overall, from the level of TimBray's comments, even though I
  haven't read the 19Aug draft carefully, I gather we've reached
  the 'make it a /TR/ WD' point]

[Ian]

  TB: 3.2-3.5 The MVC paradigm is a currently-fashionable way of
  thinking about UI software engineering. I happen to think it's
  highly overrated
  and unproven in practice, but that's not the point, the point
  is that the architecture of the Web doesn't depend on it in the
  slightest, so it
  has no place in this document. The Web Arch does not depend on
  the MVC in any way. Delete it.
  RF: How about separation of content and presentation?
  TB: I agree with that. A statement that "To the extend you can,
  you win when you separate rendering/style from content."
  DO: Is content v. presentation specific to Web arch?
  TB: I think we need this as a web arch principle. Don't be
  absolute in separation of content/presentation. That's an
  ideal. See [18]my post on www-tag on this topic.
  DC: Content v. Presentation may not be specific to Web, but
  it's certainly what WGs should be thinking about.
  NW: I am favorable to a principle about presentation v.
  structure.

  [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Aug/0191.html

[Roy]

  BTW, I delete all messages cross-posted to other www mailing
  lists without reading.

[Ian]

  Resolved: Leave MVC for now. There is some sentiment that this
  should be deleted. Need to hear from CL.
  IJ: Is this enough to publish as a first public WD?
  DC: I think so.
  TB: I think it's good enough (with some more editorial
  polishing)
  DO: I can work with IJ this week to incorporate more REST
  material.
  TB: What publication schedule logistics are we talking about?

[DanC]

  DaveO, is the text on REST handy somewhere?

  DO: [19]Short version. [20]Long version.

  [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0061.html
  [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Mar/0023.html

[ian_]

  TB: I would support publishing as is with a week's worth of
  editorial polishing.
  IJ Proposal for this week:

    1. Allow new text until Weds 12pm ET this week.
    2. IJ will produce new draft for TAG by Weds afternoon ET.
    3. The TAG can comment until Thursday evening ET.
    4. IJ will delete new portions about which there are objections.
    5. IJ will request publication as first public WD on Friday.

  RF: In my opinion, this draft describes about 20% of Web arch.
  DC: Yes, somewhere in that ballpark.
  DC: Can the chair be in the critical path on the decision to
  publish?
  NW: I will agree to stand in the critical path.
  Action DC: Get another w3m member to approve short name (since
  first public WD): webarch
  Action IJ: Talk to Janet about press release issue.
  Resolved: Next meeting meeting Friday 30 Aug at 3pm ET. Will
  attend: DC, DO, NW, TB, IJ. Probable regrets from RF. No
  meeting 2 September. Following meeting 9 September.

Open actions:

1. Action DC 2002/08/12: Ask www-tag for volunteers to work with TAG
    (and possibly IETF) on HTTP URI stuff; CRISP. [This action
    supersedes the previous action: Ask IESG when IETF decided not to
[       use HTTP URIs to name protocols.] [21]Sent. Awaiting reply.
2. Action TBL: 2002/07/15: Create a table of URI properties.
3. Action IJ 2002/07/08: Produce WD of Arch Doc. Harvest from
    [22]DanC's URI FAQ. Deadline 30 August.

  [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Aug/0196.html
  [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ures14.html

2.2 RFC3023Charset-21

1. Chris sent [23]information to www-tag. What is necessary to close
    issue [24]RFC3023Charset-21?

  [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0323.html
  [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RFC3023Charset-21

Action IJ: Work CL language into "[25]TAG Finding: Internet Media Type
registration, consistency of use". Ping PC to let him know (since he
has some text to change as well).

  [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime

2.3xlinkScope-23

What is the priority of [26]xlinkScope-23?

  [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xlinkScope-23

[ian_]

  TB: Becoming an issue since HTML WG talking about an hlink
  attrib (is this correct?) even though xlink:href available.
  NW: Related - what's the right way to do xlink? with xlink:href
  or what HTML WG wants to do?
  TB: What are the conditions under which xlink should be used?
  Should we define? Should we enforce? SVG did, SMIL didn't, HTML
  getting ready not to.
  DC: When you point from one point of an svg doc to another, do
  you point to an element or to the circle it describes?

[Zakim]

  DanC, you wanted to mention the SVG XLink issue that I saw, via
  Prescod: pointing to circles vs pointing to elements that
  describe circles

[ian_]

  NW: I think that DC's issue is new. What is the priority of
  this issue?
  TB: High priority as soon as hlink gets published?: Other rec
  track docs making the choice about how to implement linking
  primitives?
  IJ: See also the[27]CSS3 hyperlinking spec.
  NW, TB: Yes, this is part of the same issue.
  DO: I'm not convinced this is high-priority. XLink hasn't
  thrived; it seems that there are more important issues we could
  be working on.
  DC: But it costs W3C a lot to wonder whether to use XLink.
  NW: Should we try to do something before hlink draft made
  public?
  TB: In current XHTML 2.0, proposal to have an href attribute on
  every element (in the body).
  [NW and TB expect to talk about this offline.]
  NW: Proposal is that publication of the hlink spec is a gating
  factor; no further action until that's published.

  [27] http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css3-src/css3-links/Overview.html

2.4 augmentedInfoset-22

See [28]Request from Tim Bray to decide issue augmentedInfoset-22
(disposition = closed). Pushback from Simon St. Laurent.
1. ACTION DC 2002/06/17: Talk to XML Schema WG about PSVI. Report to
    tag, who expects to decide whether to add as an issue next week.
    DanC has sent email; awaiting reply from XML Scheme WG.

  [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0159.html

[ian_]

  DC: I didn't get a reply saying "We're confused."
  TB: Did PSVI API get into the [29]DOM charter?
  IJ: Yes, from 3.2 Out of scope: "post-schema-validation infoset
  (PSVI), An object model for accessing and modifying the PSVI."
  TB: So no group within W3C is mandated (at this time) to do
  further work on describing the PSVI.
  DC: The Schema WG is doing a 1.1 version of the spec that
  certainly talks about the PSVI.
  TB: I learned that while there are linkages between xquery and
  xml schema, they are non-normative; you can implement xquery
  with other schema languages; so I don't see an arch issue at
  the moment. I submitted a large comment to the xquery process
  that there does remain too much intermingling with xml schema
  that could easily go away. If they tell me to go away, I will
  come back to the TAG.
  DC: I've also had the query designers say "It's that way in xml
  schema, so we have to do it that way."
  TB: I will reraise as an arch issue if unnecessary linkage from
  query to schema remains.
  Resolved: Close [30]augmentedInfoset-22 as phrased. We may have
  to reopen it at some point.
  Action IJ: Update issues list.

  [29] http://www.w3.org/2002/05/dom-wg-charter.html
  [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#augmentedInfoset-22

2.5 New issue: contentPresentation-26

See, in particular, [31]email from Sean Palmer on separation of
content and presentation.

  [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Aug/0164.html

[ian_]

  DC: It would be sufficient for me to say "See WAI for
  information about separation of content / presentation"
  TB: Seems like more of the same of what I posted earlier. I
  suggest we raise a formal issue.

[Norm]

  Issue: structureStyle-26?
  No, structurePresentation is probably better

[ian_]
  structurePresentation-26 ok by me.

[DanC]
  google seems to know it as "Separation of form and content"

[Roy]
  Day Software's marketing line: "Everything is Content" ;-)

[Norm]
  contentPresentation-26

[ian_]
  Resolved: Accept issue contentPresentation-26.
  Action IJ: Announce issue. Point to [32]TB's text as draft of
  finding.

  [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Aug/0191.html

Another issue: Use of frags in SVG v. in XML

  RF: Hearsay that SVG refers to an object, not an element.
  NW: frag id meaning is determined by media type.
  RF: I like thinking of element as representation and object as
  resource.

  Action DC: Describe this issue in more detail for the TAG.

Postponed

1. [33]httpRange-14: Need to make progress here to advance in Arch
    Document.
2. [34]Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use.
       + Action PC [35]2002/07/08: Propose alternative cautionary
	wording for finding regarding IANA registration. Refer to
	"[36]How to Register a Media Type with IANA (for the IETF
	tree) "
3. [37]deepLinking-25
4. [38]uriMediaType-9: Status of negotiation with IETF? See
    [39]message from DanC.
       + Action TBL: Get a reply from the IETF on the TAG finding.
5. Status of [40]URIEquivalence-15. Relation to Character Model of
    the Web (chapter 4)? See text from TimBL on [41]URI
    canonicalization and [42]email from Martin in particular. See more
    [43]comments from Martin.
      1. What should a finding look like for this?
6. Status of discussions with WSA WG about SOAP/WSDL/GET/Query
    strings?
       + ACTION DO 2002/06/24: Contact WSDL WG about this issue
	(bindings, query strings and schemas) to ensure that it's on
	their radar. See [44]discussions from 24 Jun TAG teleconf.

  [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#httpRange-14
  [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime
  [35] http://www.w3.org/2002/07/08-tag-summary#media-types
  [36] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype
  [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#deepLinking-25
  [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#uriMediaType-9
  [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Jun/0095.html
  [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#URIEquivalence-15
  [41] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#canonicalization
  [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0161
  [43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0275.html
  [44] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-tag-summary.html#wsa-get

  _________________________________________________________________


Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/08/26 22:24:47 $
Received on Monday, 26 August 2002 18:49:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:10 GMT