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

[Minutes] 30 Aug 2002 TAG teleconf (arch doc, xlinkScope-23, deepLinking-25, uriMediaType-9, URIEquivalence-15)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:00:11 -0400
Message-ID: <3D6FDCDB.8090007@w3.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org

Hello,

Minutes of the 30 Aug TAG teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.

  - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

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


    W3C | TAG | Previous:26 Aug | Next: 9 Sep

           Minutes of 30 August 2002 TAG teleconference

    Nearby: Teleconference details  issues list  www-tag
    archive

1. Administrative

     1. Roll call: NW (Chair), TB, CL, DC, IJ, DO
        (partial). Regrets: TBL, PC, SW, RF
     2. Accepted 26 Aug minutes
     3. Accepted this agenda
     4. Next meeting: 9 Sep. Regrets: IJ, possibly CL.

   1.2 Completed actions confirmed

     1. Action IJ 2002/07/08: Produce WD of Arch Doc.
        Harvest from DanC's URI FAQ. Deadline 30 August.
        Done: See 30 August draft.
     2. Arch doc actions from 26 August:
          1. All resolutions taken into account.
          2. Action IJ and NW: Work on this footnote text.
             Foot note deleted.
          3. Action IJ: Tweak this text to reflect TB and
             RF comments.
          4. Action IJ: Talk to Janet about press release
             issue. No press release.
          5. Action DC: Get another w3m member to approve
             short name (since first public WD): webarch
     3. Action IJ: Update issues list w.r.t. closing
        augmentedInfoset-22
     4. Action IJ: Announce new issue
        contentPresentation-26.

2. Technical issues

     1. Comments on Architecture Document
     2. xlinkScope-23
     3. deepLinking-25
     4. uriMediaType-9
     5. URIEquivalence-15
     6. Postponed

   2.1 Comments on Architecture Document

    The TAG is happy about the publication of the 30 August
    draft of the Architecture Document.

    [Ian]
     DC: Easy or hard to decided to publish?
     NW: I was comfortable.
     TB: Polish has improved intensely.

    [DanConn]

     Architectural Principles of the World Wide Web
     W3C Working Draft 30 August 2002
     ^hooray!
     If anybody comes up with speaking points, please
     share them.

    [Ian]
     [Press issues]
     IJ: I think Janet Daly will be happy if TB
     alerts the press.
     CL: I would be pleased.
     IJ: What pieces in section 2 are sorely missing?
     TB: I think over next few meetings, I think arch
     doc improvements should be high priority. I
     would focus on section 3 next.
     NW: Focus on issues pre-ftf, then new text after
     tag ftf meeting.
     TB: I think sections shouldn't be here unless
     they contain principles.

    [DanConn]
     ^hmm... interesting idea
     "9. Do not use unregistered URI schemes:" looks
     like a good practice thingy more than a
     principle.

    [Ian]
     IJ: Not addition of good practice note. May also
     justify a section.

    [DanConn]
     "When one expects to interact with a resource"
     <- stilted. I hope we can do away with that sort
     of language.

    [Ian]
     IJ: Also, sections exist where there are issues.
     NW: 2.2.3 linked to frag ids.
     CL: Frag ids halfway between ids and formats.
     TB: 2.2.3 suggests a good practice note: "Be
     careful about using frag ids in the following
     situations."

    [DanConn]
     "2.6. Some generalities about absolute URI
     references"
     IJ: I'm not sure 2.6 will still be around, in
     the end, but it's kind of handy, and I'm not
     sure where that material is covered elsewhere
     yet.

    [Ian]
     IJ: I think 2.6 might be exploded. But I think
     it's a useful FAQ..
     TB: Yes, I think it's correct to leave here for
     now, until we figure it out.
     IJ: Is there something major missing in section
     2? Please speak up soon if so.

   2.2 xlinkScope-23

    See issue xlinkScope-23

    [Ian]

     TB: See may comments on traffic on xml-dev on
     this issue.

    [DanConn]
     hm... s/Recently Published Working
     Drafts/Working Drafts this Month/
     (the "Recently Published" words at the start of
     headings makes it hard to navigate the /TR/
     page)

    [Ian]
     [Some discussion of hlink specification from
     HTML WG.]
     TB: I think being a linking schema language is a
     useful way to think about hlink
     NW: Difficult to have discussions on this draft
     since not yet published.
     CL: I think the TAG should request that the HTML
     WG publish this.
     DC: I nominate CL to ask them.
     Resolved: to encourage HTML WG to publish their
     recent work related to linking.
     Action CL: Request that this be done (through
     HTML CG, WG, or whatever works)

   2.3 deepLinking-25

    See issue deepLinking-25

    [Ian]

     DC: Joseph Reagle now in the loop; see message
     from Joseph.
     TB: He debunks the notion that we are wasting
     our time talking about it.
     NW: I think that we would agree that the web
     arch would be broken if you had to ask for
     permission before creating a link.
     DC: It's not a good model for human
     communication.
     TB: The Web arch includes sufficient
     infrastructure that, if you want to establish
     access control, there is a good and automated
     way to use that (per spec), and doing so is
     fine.
     DC: If you put a sign on your store "Don't come
     in after 8pm" without a lock, you would be
     silly.
     TB: Publication of a URI without access control
     is an invitation to dereference.
     CL: Also, confusion between publication of
     content and how it's used. How I use material is
     relevant.
     DC: Someone is committing fraud if they change
     the referrer field value.
     TB: I might be inclined to go after someone in
     court.
     IJ: Sounds like TB perilously on the edge of a
     finding...
     DC: Everything we do is related to public
     policy.
     CL: There is also the W3C T&S Domain.
     DO: Go for it TB!
     CL: I have a concern: Suppose I have a UA that
     takes note of information about a page, and
     stores it in a bookmark. And the UA knows that
     if it sends a referrer value, it will get the
     desired content.
     DC: Fraud is closely related to intent. The
     principle is that links are like citations. I
     can talk about anybody's stuff.
     TB: I agree.
     DC: Misrepresentation is another story (e.g.,
     copyright infringement).
     CL: But framing may be used for purposes other
     than deception.
     TB: The court enters for edge cases. That's
     appropriate. You have a trial when I think you
     are damaging my interests.
     DC: Fair use enters here (you can quote 10% but
     not all; there's reams of law in this area).
     TB: It's unequivocally the case that I can
     publish a document that says "The dissertation
     published here is junk."
     DC: Publishing on the Web is not much different
     than publishing on paper. Not identical, but
     very analogous.
     CL: Example of TB's "Annotated XML 1.0".
     TB: There are two frames - spec at top and
     commentary on the right.
     DC: It created a wrinkle in our policy: we now
     say this was done with permission.

     Action TB: Draft a finding for deepLinking-25.

   2.4 uriMediaType-9

    See issue uriMediaType-9
     1. uriMediaType-9: Status of negotiation with IETF?
        See message from DanC.
     + Action TBL: Get a reply from the IETF on the
       TAG finding.

    [Ian]
     DC: We said we wanted IANA to make available
     stable URIs for media types. The way you ask the
     IETF something is to write an Internet draft.: I
     wrote to www-tag and then got Mark Baker's
     attention.

    [Norm]
     Action DC to write draft. Deadline, 30 Sep

   2.5 URIEquivalence-15

    See issue URIEquivalence-15

    [DanConn]

     Architecture document, "2.2.1. Comparison of
     identifiers" mentions URIEquivalence-15.
     Suggestion: ask Martin Duerst to review section
     2.2.

    [ian_]
     TB: Martin says you have no hope but a hard line
     (see Martin's email). Whether %7e = %7E in all
     cases is a slippery slope. I thought we could
     retroactively assert that post-normalization
     affects escapes, but I don't think we can.
     DC: I want people to copy paste URIs as is, and
     question any changes.
     TB: I would like I18N WG to should "Always use
     lower case." There's a contradiction between the
     RFC and the namespaces spec.
     DC: Clear to me that we need to say loudly: "If
     you mean the same thing, say it the same way!":
     I am willing to redraft 2.2.1.
     Action DC: Redraft 2.2.1.
     TB: I don't think we can sweep away apparent
     contradiction with HTTP URIs. Avoid "byte" and
     "binary".
     DC: Use "characters".
     TB: No, compare code points.

    [DanConn]
     If you know the characters are encoded in
     US-ASCII, you can compare bytes, for example.
     and you can generalize for all other character
     encoding schemes, including, e.g. EBCDIC.

    [ian_]
     IJ: In the redraft, can we work in proposals on
     URIEquivalence-15, notably re: good practice?
     Action CL: I will ask Martin for suggestions for
     good practice regarding URI canonicalization
     issues, such as %7E v. &7e and suggested use of
     lower case.

   2.6 Postponed

     1. httpRange-14: Need to make progress here to advance
        in Arch Document.
     2. RFC3023Charset-21:
          1. Chris sent information to www-tag. What is
       necessary to close this issue?
          2. Action IJ 2002/09/26: Work CL language into
       "TAG Finding: Internet Media Type
       registration, consistency of use". Ping PC to
       let him know (since he has some text to change
       as well).
     3. 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 discussions from 24 Jun TAG teleconf.

     Findings in progress, architecture document

    See also: findings.
     1. Architecture document
          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.] Sent. Awaiting reply.
          2. Action TBL: 2002/07/15: Create a table of URI
       properties.
     2. Internet Media Type registration, consistency of
        use.
     + Action PC 2002/07/08: Propose alternative
       cautionary wording for finding regarding IANA
       registration. Refer to "How to Register a
       Media Type with IANA (for the IETF tree) "

     New issues?

      * Use of frags in SVG v. in XML
     + Action DC 2002/09/26: Describe this issue in
       more detail for the TAG. See comments from
       Chris Lilley (sent after the meeting).
      __________________________________________________


     Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
     Last modified: $Date: 2002/08/30 20:59:56 $
Received on Friday, 30 August 2002 17:04:02 GMT

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