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

Action PC 2002/09/09

From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:55:27 -0400
Message-ID: <E7AC4500EAB7A442ABA7521D18814397032F9FEA@tor-msg-01.northamerica.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

*  Action PC 2002/09/09 to review updates to finding 
                 regarding 'cautionary' words about the nature of the 
                 advised registration process. 

I have reviewed Ian's proposed text and believe it handles my original
action item assigned at the July 8 TAG meeting.

/paulc 

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
<mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com> 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 1:13 AM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: [Agenda] 16 September TAG teleconf
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> A draft agenda for the 16 September 2002 TAG teleconference
> is available as HTML [1] and as text below.
> 
> [Apologies that the usual links are missing from the text version]
> 
> Stuart
> --
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/16-tag
> 
> 
>      Agenda for 16 September 2002 TAG teleconference
> 
> 
>      Note: The Chair does not expect the agenda to change after close
of
>      business (Boston time) Thursday of this week.
> 
>      1. Administrative (15min)
> 
> 
>       1. Confirm scribe and Chair (SW)
>       2. Roll call. Regrets: IJ
>       3. Accept 9 Sep minutes
>       4. Accept this agenda
>       5. Next meeting? Proposed 7th October (after F2F).
>       6. F2F Arrangements update.
> 
>      1.2 Completed actions?
> 
>          None.
> 
>      2. Technical (75min)
> 
> 
>      2.1 Findings in progress, architecture document (20min)
> 
>      See also: findings.
> 
>       1. Findings in progress:
>           1. deepLinking-25
>               *  Action TB 2002/09/09: Revise draft as a result of
> feedback.
> 
> 
>               *  Action DC 2002/09/09: Request Joe Reagle to review
"Deep
> Linking".
> 
>           2. Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use.
>               *  Action PC 2002/09/09 to review updates to finding
>                  regarding 'cautionary' words about the nature of the
>                  advised registration process.
> 
>               *  Does this change close issue RFC3023Charset-21? (We
> didn't
>                  answer this question last week).
> 
>               *  Action SW 2002/09/09: Discuss approach the updating
of
>                  accepted findings with Ian (pending Ian's return).
> 
>       2. Architecture document
>           1. Action DC 2002/09/09: Summarize public feedback on WD
(due
>              before F2F).
> 
>           2. Action DC 2002/09/09: Write up alternate view of URI
>              properties table [decision tree->scheme].
> 
>      2.2 Priority issues (55min)
> 
>       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).
> 
>       2. 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.
> 
>            *  [Question from the chair: Is this the same as the ID
that
> DanC
> 
>                is working with volunteer?]
> 
>       3. 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. Action DC 2002/08/30: Redraft section 2.2.1 of Arch
Document
>              to address this issue.
> 
>           2. Action 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.
> 
>       4.httpRange-14
>              Discussion has been pending TBL's return. Is there
anything
> we
>              can do ahead of the F2F that will help us conclude on
this
>              issue. Summary of positions:
> 
>               1. HTTP URI (without frag) identify documents and SHOULD
NOT
>                  be used to identify abstract concepts or non-network
>                  connected real-world things like people, mountains or
>                  cars.
> 
>               2. HTTP URI (without frags) MAY identify be used to
identify
>                  any kind of thing, including abstract concepts and
real-
>                  world things like people, mountains or cars.
> 
>       5. Status of discussions with WSA WG about SOAP/WSDL/GET/Query
>          strings?
>              Action TB 2002/09/09: Refer TAG to Paul Prescod's message
on
>              problems with WSDL URI encoding.
> 
>      2.3 New issues?
> 
>          Use of frags in SVG v. in XML
> 
>          l  Action DC 2002/08/26: Describe this issue in more detail
for
>             the TAG.
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 20:56:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:11 GMT