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

[Minutes] 7 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf (xlinkScope-23, arch doc, rfc3023Charset-21)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 12:11:47 -0400
Message-ID: <3DA303C3.6070100@w3.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org

Hello,

Minutes from the 7 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.

  - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/10/07-tag-summary

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


========================================================
    W3C | TAG | Previous: 24-25 Sep ftf meeting | Next:
    21 Oct

          Minutes of 7 October 2002 TAG teleconference

    Nearby: IRC log ? Teleconference details ? issues
    list ? www-tag archive

1. Administrative

     1. Roll call: SW (Chair), TBL, NW, PC, RF, DO, PC,
        CL, IJ (Scribe). Regrets: DC
     2. Accepted 24-25 Sep ftf meeting minutes
     3. Accepted monthly summary (sent).
     4. Accepted this agenda
     5. Next meeting: 21 Oct. (14 Oct is holiday in
        Canada and US)

   1.2 Completed actions

     1. TB 2002/09/24: Send a draft email to tag@w3.org
        regarding XML namespaces 1.1 spec in last call
        (Done, then email sent to www-tag).
     2. NW 2002/09/24: Draft an email (for TAG review)
        suggesting to the HTML WG that XHTML 2.0 should
        use XLink for hyperlink constructs, or provide a
        technical explanation why that's not a good
        design decision. (Done, then email sent to
        www-tag).

   1.3 Meeting planning

     1. Action IJ 2002/09/24: Report to plenary meeting
        organizers that the TAG does not intend to have a
        ftf meeting at that time. [Done]
     2. Action IJ 2002/09/24: Begin planning a meeting
        for Feb 2003 in Boston. [Alert sent to admin
        folks]
     3. Action IJ 2002/09/24: Find out more
        administrative information about TAG ftf meeting
        in Nov 2002. [Done; see meeting page]
     4. Action IJ 2002/09/24: Send email to Steve Bratt
        requesting slot at AC meeting for arch
        discussion, distinct from TAG reporting slot. Ask
        the AB if they agree to sharing slots at AC
        meeting. [Done] The AB has declined the offer,
        because the AB thinks it will need more time to
        do its own update.
     5. Action IJ, SW 2002/09/24: Compile list of process
        questions AB postponed so that first TAG could
        answer. [Done; TAG-only]
     6. Action SW 2002/09/24: Take to the mailing list
        the top three TAG questions for the AC (for Nov
        2002). (Sent to TAG; for discussion 21 Oct)

    The TAG discussed its presentation to the Advisory
    Committee at the Nov 2002 AC meeting.

    Action PC: Respond toIJ's summary of process issues
    (TAG-only) from AB regarding TAG charter. Also,
    clarify meaning of "short-term resolutions" in
    charter.

2. Technical

     1. xlinkScope-23
     2. Arch doc revision schedule
     3. RFC3023Charset-21

   2.1 xlinkScope-23

    See issue xlinkScope-23. SW began discussion on the
    topic of TAG communication on this issue from the
    24-25 Sep ftf meeting
     1. xlinkScope-23
          1. Action CL 2002/08/30: Request that the HTML
             WG to publish their recent work related to
             linking (through HTML CG, WG, or whatever
             works). [Done]

    [Ian]
           SW: TBL and I felt we might have done a better
           job in communication. IJ sent me a request:
           that the chairs make a statement about the
           normative standing of communications from the
           TAG. My response to this is: if not been
           through W3C Rec track process, not normative.

           TB: I think SW's assertion is true. However,
           the TAG was chartered to document what is
           architecturally sound; so other groups should
           "pay attention" to our communications even if
           they are not strictly normative.
           IJ: I am looking for clarification about the
           phrase "Short term resolutions" in the
           charter: "Short-term issue resolutions are
           subject to appeal by Advisory Committee
           representatives; refer to the appeal process
           described in section 6 of the Process
           Document."

    [TBray]
           Disagree with scribe's formulation slightly:
           even though it may not be normative, part of
           Director's role is to do oversight on
           architectural consistency, and since such
           consistency is in the TAG's purview, a WG
           chair might very reasonably worry about an
           outstanding TAG opinion that there are arch
           problems

    [Ian]
           TB: The issues don't go away, whether the
           communications are normative or not.
           TBL: If you disagree with us, it's important
           that you tell us. I think we cautious that our
           communications clearly state when TAG
           discussion is the start, not end, of technical
           discussion. Some discussion had already taken
           place on public lists, but discussion needs to
           happen in one (public) place.
           [Discussion of the use of the term "normative"
           in this context.]
           TBL: The Arch Doc is not normative in the
           sense of other documents on the W3C
           Recommendation track.
           CL: Do we encourage people to design specs in
           line with findings?
           TBL: Relationship between an arch spec and
           another is context-sensitive. It's reasonable
           for people to challenge the architecture doc
           in some circumstances.: Findings are not
           Recommendations. Even if communications not
           "normative", difference of opinions are
           important.
           TB: Couldn't hurt to say again that the ftf
           opinions were expressed to start discussion.
           I'd like to talk about strategy about moving
           xlink issue forward.
           PC: We've already commented that we haven't
           gotten enough feedback yet from W3C
           participants. I want to encourage the TAG to
           use its resources to push its WD forward
           aggressively.

    [DaveO]
           I had proposed that we have a matrix of all
           the possible designs and possible syntaxes

    [Ian]
           IJ: What is a "short term" resolution as the
           TAG charter says?
           SW: I think that TAG findings are short-term
           resolutions.

    [TBray]
           agree with Stuart

    [Ian]
           SW: But we haven't had to face "dispute
           resolution"
           IJ: I suggest that PC in his review of process
           issues try to comment on the "short-term
           resolution" part of our charter; whether it
           applies in practice.
           [Moving on to technical issue of moving
           xlinkScope-23 forward.]
           CL: See my email from a moment ago.
           SW: How to we build consensus moving forward,
           in light of lots of discussion since ftf
           meeting.

    [Zakim]
           Timbl, you wanted to discuss direction
           specifically for the XLink question

    [Ian]
           TBL: I am not sure we are converging yet on
           this issue. TAG could help by charting the
           discussion space. Some discussion, for
           example, has been about "why XLink does not
           provide what XHTML needs". There are other
           pieces as well (requirements for XHTML,
           requirements for mixing namespaces, etc.) Mail
           threads not sufficiently powerful to resolve
           this one yet. A matrix of issues (as DO
           pointed out) would help. Also provide history
           and indicate where we must move beyond history
           (possibly with apologies).
           DO: I agree with TBL here. I also agree with
           Noah Mendelsohn - more clearly state the costs
           and benefits of different proposals.
           TB: I agree with DO and TBL that it's urgent
           that we structure this debate.: A matrix of
           alternatives and trade-offs would be very
           helpful. I am optimistic. I also think it's
           important to reach out the HTML WG. Will the
           HTML WG be interested in engaging debate on
           this? How do we encourage the HTML WG to
           participate in these discussions?
           SW: How about participation in the matrix
           summary?
           [NW notes that XLink WG charter expires at end
           of year.]
           TB: I sent a comment on how to revise XLink to
           get rid of 90% of xlink:type and got friendly
           replies from people. Such a change might help
           build consensus.
           IJ: I support a TAG teleconf inviting a few
           people to hammer out consensus.
           TBL: Some concerns that it might focus too
           much on rehashing history.
           [TAG chuckles at "The Matrix" jokes.]

    [Norm]
           "There is no xlink..."

    [Ian]
           CL: Need to include the SMIL and XForms folks
           in the party; find out rationale for their
           decisions,: (e.g., find out why xforms last
           call doc removed xlink) And ask SVG WG why it
           helped them.
           PC: I urged us to have this debate in public
           so that we could understand whether it is
           feasible for a group to use XLink (or a
           slightly modified alternative). The result of
           the process may be that XLink Rec needs work,
           and other WGs may want to include links in
           specs where they feel XLink is inappropriate.
           I think we may end up with a "split decision",
           where we recommend XLink for some cases and
           nothing in other cases. I think that's where
           we are today. Unless we speak to that problem,
           we'll just go around in circles.
           DO: I agree with PC.
           NW: I think PC is probably right. I have not
           been getting optimistic vibes from the
           discussion thus far. At the end of the day,
           some people will just do linking in their own
           namespaces, and no technical, political, or
           social issue will convince them; and we should
           accept that.
           CL (re: PC's comment): I can't imagine we
           would issue a Solomonic pronouncement. I think
           we need more discussion focusing on technical
           needs.
           TBL: We need to consider requirements from
           different areas, but we may rule some of them
           out.

    [TBray]
           agrees with TimBL on this

    [Ian]
           TBL: You can use xhtml:a as well.
           TBL wanted to agree to as many possible
           outcomes, including new xlink, using html:a in
           other languages, and so on.

    [Ian]
           TB: I disagree with NW in part about whether
           people will dig in their heels. We need to
           tease out technical issues. If people continue
           to hold positions based on other reasons
           (e.g., emotional), those reasons probably
           won't hold.
           TBL: Email will be easier than teleconf to
           move issue forward.

    [TBray]
           agree with TBL

    [Ian]
           SW: Who would like to edit a matrix?
           IJ: I suggest surveying different groups to
           find out why they chose/did not chose xlink,
           what pros /cons are for them?
           DO: I think we should prime the pump and send
           a proposal to the community. I have expressed
           my opinion previously that I have concerns
           about spending a lot of time on this issue,
           but now that we have chosen to do so, I think
           we should kick off discussion with a proposal.
           [Discussion of structuring follow-up]

    [Chris]
           seconded - Go Stuart!

    [Ian]

         Action SW: Draw up a neutral proposal (due 21
                 Oct) summarizing threads and debating
                 points on xlinkScope-23.

    [TBray]
           I'd like the minutes to reflect that I've
           expressed concern about lack of input except
           for initial statements from HTML WG people
           like Steven Pemberton & Shane McCarron,
           especially given that some new-sounding things
           have been said in the last couple of weeks
           So I don't think we can make real progress
           until their opinions/analyses/examples are
           part of the discussion

   2.2 Architecture document revision schedule

    IJ discussed his schedule and intention to return to
    work on Arch Doc around 17 October.
     1. Draft schedule for next arch document:
          1. 28 Oct: TAG review of whatever current draft
             is starts.
          2. 4 Nov: TAG closes issues about draft.
          3. 11 Nov: Final discussion, request to
             publish.
          4. 13 Nov: Next TR draft published.

    Other Architecture document actions
     1. Completed Action TBL: 2002/07/15: Create a table
        of URI properties. (Done)
     2. Action RF 2002/09/25: On the topic of revising
        RFC2396, indicate to the TAG what the relevant
        IETF fora are for input.
        RF: Join uri@w3.org (archive). I will send a
        message about the relevant issue when it comes
        up.

    Still open:
     1. Finish discussion of feedback on arch document.:
          1. Summary of comments
          2. Comments from Graham Klyne
          3. Comments from Daniel Dardailler
     2. 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.
     3. Action RF 2002/09/25: Propose a rewrite of a
        principle (rationale -> principle -> constraint)
        to see whether the TAG prefers this approach. It
        was suggested that the example be about
        HTTP/REST, as part of section 4.
     4. Action TBL 2002/09/25: Propose text on
        information hiding.
     5. Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3,
        incorporating CL's existing text and TB's
        structural proposal (see minutes of 25 Sep ftf
        meeting on formats).
        CL: I hope to have this by end of week.
     6. Action NW 2002/09/25: Write some text for a
        section on namespaces (docs at namespace URIs,
        use of RDDL-like thing).
        NW: In progress.
     7. Action RF 2002/09/25: On the topic of revising
        RFC2396, indicate to the TAG what the relevant
        IETF fora are for input.
     8. Action DO/NW 2002/0925: Write up a piece for arch
        doc on versioning.

   2.3 RFC3023Charset-21

    Having reviewed IJ's proposed changes to finding and
    reply from Reagle, the TAG agreed to close issue
    RFC3023Charset-21.

   2.4 Postponed

     Findings in progress

    See also: findings.
     1. Findings in progress:
          1. deepLinking-25
               1. TB 2002/09/09: Revise "Deep Linking" in
                  light of 9 Sep minutes. Status of
                  finding?
     2. Findings versioning
          1. SW 2002/09/09: Discuss with IJ versioning of
             findings. Pending. SW and IJ have discussed
             latest accepted v. latest draft.

     Issues

     1. namespaceDocument-8
          1. Action TB 2002/09/24: Revise the RDDL
             document to use RDF rather than XLink. Goal
             of publication as W3C Note.
          2. Action NW 2002/09/25: Write some text for an
             Arch Doc section on namespaces (docs at
             namespace URIs, use of RDDL-like thing).
     2. contentPresentation-26
          1. Action CL 2002/09/24: Draft text on the
             principle of separation of content and
             presentation for the Arch Doc.
     3. rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          1. Action DC 2002/09/24: Write to Schema WG to
             say that TAG is interested in progress on
             this issue. Copy Jonathan Borden and Brian
             McBride.
     4. uriMediaType-9:
           + Action DC 2002/08/30: Write a draft Internet
             Draft based on this finding (Deadline 30
             Sep). This action probably subsumes the
             action on TBL to get a reply from the IETF
             on the TAG finding.
     5. Status of URIEquivalence-15. Relation to
        Character Model of the Web (chapter 4)? See text
        from TimBL on URI canonicalization and email from
        Martin in particular. See more comments from
        Martin.
          1. CL 2002/08/30: Ask Martin Duerst for
             suggestions for good practice regarding URI
             canonicalization issues, such as %7E v. &7e
             and suggested use of lower case. At 16 Sep
             meeting, CL reports pending; action to send
             URI to message to TAG.
     6. Status of discussions with WSA WG about
        SOAP/WSDL/GET/Query strings?
           + 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 9 Sep TAG teleconf.

   2.5 New issues?

      * Use of frags in SVG v. in XML
           + Action DC 2002/09/26: Describe this issue in
             more detail for the TAG.
      ________________________________________________


     Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
     Last modified: $Date: 2002/10/08 16:09:27 $
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2002 12:12:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:34 UTC