W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2003

[Minutes] 23 Jun 2003 TAG teleconf (abstractComponents-37, Arch Doc, contentTypeOverride-24, issues walkthrough)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 24 Jun 2003 09:42:25 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1056462144.941.65.camel@seabright>

Hello,

Minutes of the 23 June 2003 TAG teleconference are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/23-tag-summary.html

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

                   Minutes of 23 June 2003 TAG teleconference

   Nearby: [4]IRC log |[5]Teleconference details  [6]issues list 
   [7]www-tag archive

      [4] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/23-tagmem-irc.html
      [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/#remote
      [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist
      [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/

 1. Administrative

    1. Roll call: SW (Chair), DC, NW, DO, TB, PC, IJ (Scribe).. Regrets:
       TBL, RF, CL
    2. Accepted minutes of [8]16 Jun teleconference
    3. Accepted this [9]agenda
    4. Next meeting: 30 June. Regrets: PC, DO.
    5. Summer meeting planning; see [10]request from Stuart. We are
       likely to cancel 18 and 25 July.
       Action SW: Send proposed August schedule to TAG.

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/16-tag-summary.html
      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/23-tag.html
     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jun/0048.html

2. Technical

    1. [11]abstractComponentRefs-37
    2. [12]Architecture Document
    3. [13]contentTypeOverride-24
    4. [14]whenToUseGet-7
    5. [15]Issues walk-through

  2.1 abstractComponentRefs-37

     * [16]abstractComponentRefs-37
         1. Completed action DO 2003/06/02: Update [17]description of
            [18]issue abstractComponentRefs-37 ([19]Done)

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0089.html
     [18] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0054.html

   [Ian]

          DO: Most updates based on comments from RF. RF expressed a
          preference. I think there's a dependency on opacity issue.
          TB: Procedurally, it seems that we now have enough material to
          bite down and see what we think. Put this on top of queue at
          future meeting.
          PC: Do any requirements meet needs of WSDL group?
          DO: I've not asked them for review.
          TB: When we discuss this, they should let us know in advance of
          our teleconf.
          Action DO: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask them for their
          analysis.

  2.2 Architecture document

   Update: [20]23 June 2003 Editor's Draft of the Arch Doc.
    1. Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 5. Section 5 is expected to
       be short. See [21]RF placeholder
       TB notes that even if no further text is provided by RF, TB is ok
       to go to last call with placeholder.
    2. Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a draft finding on
       content/presentation.
    3. Action SW 2003/06/02: Continue work on and make available a draft
       finding related to the opacity of URIs.
    4. Action DO 2003/06/02: Write up a couple of paragraphs on
       extensibility for section 4.
    5. Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of
       "[22]Conversations and State" into section to be produced by RF.
    6. Action PC 2003/06/16: Send second draft of AC announcement
       regarding TAG's last call expectations/thoughts and relation to AC
       meeting feedback.
       PC: I expect to send DO a revision.

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030623
     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jun/0072.html
     [22] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conversations

   [Ian]

          IJ: Where we on arch doc? Ready to go to TR page?
          DC: If it's good enough for IJ and two readers, good enough for
          me to go to TR page.
          TB: I promise to read by Thurs and publish an opinion as to
          going to TR.
          DC: I also commit to reading it.
          PC, DO, NW: That plan sounds good.
          NW: I may read the arch doc this week.
          DC: I think we don't know where TBL is on this. I think he
          would not object to publishing.
          SW: Therefore, with approval from DC, IJ, and TB on 23 June
          draft, IJ can request publication as TR document.

   [Norm]
          Ian: wrt 3.2.4 in the new draft, I had intended the two SHOULD
          paragraphs to be good practice (or some other sort of) notes

   [DanC]
          so RESOLVED.

   [Stuart]
          indeed

  2.3 contentTypeOverride-24, "Client Handling of MIME Headers"

     * [23]contentTypeOverride-24
          + Next step on finding "[24]Client handling of MIME headers"
          + [25]Speech Recognition Grammar Specification Version 1.0,
            section [26]2.2.2 External Reference by URI
          + [27]Client handling of MIME headers; see [28]summary of
            comments.
            Completed action SW 2003/06/16: Ping Voice Browser WG on
            status of their discussions on this topic .
            Action IJ 2003/06/16: Add to draft finding discussion about
            servers not guessing header information (e.g., charset).

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [25] http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-grammar/
     [26] http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-grammar/#S2.2.2
     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0099.html

   Numbered points in discussion below are those in [29]summary of
   comments.

     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0099.html

   [Ian]

          3) I think the finding should address issues of "local
          override"of headers. Some examples where instructions in
          content
          seem to override headers (if so, why ok? if not, why not?).
          - xml:lang
          - SCRIPT/type in HTML
          - Mixed content
          TB: I think that it's ok, once you're inside content, to have
          extra metadata to help process a particular chunk of the
          content. xml:lang would have no interpretation if the whole
          content were served as text/plain. The default toplevel context
          is that headers are authoritative for the entity as a whole.
          IJ: what about xml:lang on the document root?
          TB: Won't have meaning unless the media type defines the
          interpretation.
          DC: This is not overriding, this is specializing.
          [Discussion of xml:lang; predefined but not required by xml
          1.*]
          4) We should include a comment that the SMIL 1.0 Recommendation
          (and possibly others?) does not do the right thing in this
          area.
          TB, DC: Yes.
          4) Also, in HTML 4.01, META/http-equiv can be used by servers
          to generate an HTTP header (see section 7.4.4 [$1\47],
          subsection
          "META and HTTP headers"). This might be a source of confusion
          because the META element is supposed to be interpreted
          server-side, not client-side.
          DC: Yes, deal with that. Oh, the finding already does.
          [Done]
          DC: Let's try to get through this discussion with 0 bytes
          changes.
          5)Add note about use of RFC2119 terms, Sugested tweaking
          language around "engaging in non-authoritative behavior" in
          section 4.
          [Those two done]
          5)Need to talk up security issues that can occur when headers
          not respected.
          PC: Yes, I think we should. This is a compelling argument.
          DC: I think there's a CERT Advisory over this...can't
          remember... If your firewalls say "Keep out all postscript" and
          this is labeled as "text/plain", and the client peeks in and
          says "this looks like postscript", then the client has violated
          firewall rules.
          Action TB: Ask www-tag for info about security whole related to
          contentTypeOverride.
          6) From Roy at the [30]12 May teleconf: Roy cited "efficiency"
          as a reason why the architecture makes server headers
          authoritative. The draft finding does not make the efficiency
          argument and probably should.
          IJ: Efficiency argument is that less costly to examine short
          string than to look into content.
          TB: Notably to fire up an xml parser. It's substantially more
          costly to dispatch on metadata than on examination inside
          content.
          PC: There's a trade-off between performance and usability.
          TB: Arch args on performance and security are pretty high. The
          CERT Advisory looks very good.
          Summarizing: IJ expects to revise finding to take account:
          1) Editorial request from E. R. Harold
          2) SMIL 1.0 gets it wrong
          3) A security scenario
          4) Efficiency argument.
          Action IJ: Update finding early this week.
          DC: Let's not finalize before we meet with Voice WG again. I
          suggest that we go back to the Voice WG to say we're pretty
          close on this.
          SW: I'll be talking with IJ and the Voice folks on this.
          DC: If we invite them to a teleconf, I'd like them to come
          prepared having read this finding.

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/12-tag-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24

          Action SW: Work with Voice WG on revised text related to
          contentTypeOverride-24 and bring back to TAG.

  2.4 whenToUseGet-7, "URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET and POST"

     * [31]whenToUseGet-7
          + Next step for [32]revised draft finding?

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030509.html

   [Ian]
          [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0067
          [34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0066.ht
          ml
          "I think that at this time, Ian's summary is actually more
          accurate of the
          current state of affairs. That is, GET is supported, without
          RPC vs non-rpc
          invoke styles being referenced.
          "
          DO: There's a difference between RPC generally and the way that
          SOAP uses the term RPC. I think we are niggling a bit on the
          exact overlap. I need to refresh my memory on this.
          IJ: See also [35]Larry Masinter comments

     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0067
     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0066.html
     [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0104.html

   [DanC]
          Regarding LM's comments, "data" or "ftp" would work.

   [Ian]
          DC: LM is asking us to answer when HTTP is the answer or when
          any URI would work.
          TB: LM's point is well-taken. We should be specific about
          whether we are talking just about HTTP or a larger class.
          IJ: I think a sentence will do.
          Action IJ: Incorporate a sentence about scope based on LM
          comments.

  2.5 Issues walk-through

   The TAG discussed the following[36] issues with these questions in
   mind:
    1. Do we need to resolve this issue before going to last call?
    2. How close are we to closing this issue?
    3. Should we spend time on this issue at the upcoming face-to-face
       meeting?

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html

     * [37]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
            desideratum ([38]RQ-23).

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [38] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183

   [Ian]

          DC, TB: Not required to complete for last call.
          TB: I'm more convinced this is hard and important.
          DC: The Arch has grown without this feature and an arch doc can
          talk about web that precedes this issue.
          TB: I agree with DC.
          [Support for addressing this issue face-to-face]
          DC: Put issues 37 and 38 nearby

     * [39]whenToUseGet-7

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7

          * DO: Monitor WSDL WG. See WSDL Reqs, Req#128
          DC: I think issue 7 needs to be closed before last call
          WSDL spec currently doesn't hurt or help w.r.t this issue.
          PC: DO could remind WSDL working group at last call.

     * [40]namespaceDocument-8
          + Action TB 2003/04/07: Prepare RDDL Note. Include in status
            section that there is TAG consensus that RDDL is a suitable
            format for representations of an XML namespace. Clean up
            messy section 4 of RDDL draft and investigate and publish a
            canonical mapping to RDF. See TB's [41]1 June version.
          + Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue,
            pointing to the RDDL Note. See [42]comments from Paul
            regarding TB theses.
          + Refer to draft TAG [43]opinion from Tim Brayon the use of
            URNs for namespace names.
               o RF: Folks assume that because the specs say so, URNs
                 will be persisitent. But persistence is a function of
                 institutional commitment and frequency of use.

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#namespaceDocument-8
     [41] http://www.tbray.org/tag/rddl/rddl3.html
     [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
     [43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0003.html

          TB: You won't leave the room in Vancouver until closed.
          PC: Are issues 8 and 35 related?
          TB: I can speak to that.
          DC: I don't have an expectation that we'll close issue 8 any
          time soon.
          TB summarizing what he thinks necessary to declare victory (1)
          revised rddl (2) finding citing rddl as one option (3) mapping
          to RDF
          PC: I agree with TB's view of history. Please make required
          reading the thread that starts with publication of TB's latest
          version.
          TB: Jonathan Borden was agreeing with DC. I would grumble but
          wouldn't stand in the way. I think it's good to have a
          statement about canonical RDF to generate. Someone contributed
          an xslt script.

     * [44]uriMediaType-9
          + IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
            (see [45]email from Chris Lilley).What's required to close
            this issue?
          + Action CL 2003/05/05: Propose CL's three changes to
            registration process to Ned Freed. [What forum?]

     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
     [45] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html

          DC: We didn't end up discussing this at last W3C/IETF meeting
          for a number of reasons.
          TB: I don't think this issue stands in the way of the arch doc

     * [46]httpRange-14

     [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#httpRange-14

          DC: If we're not going to resolve this one, we need to stay
          clear of it.
          [IJ modified doc to address DC's concern]
          TB: If RF and TBL don't think we need to resolve this before
          moving I'm ok to move forward without resolving it.
          PC: How do we expect to make progress on this?
          TB: This issue is important, but not currently actively
          affecting the arch doc.
          NW: I don't object to leaving it off the agenda of this ftf
          meeting. But I do not believe we will make substantive progress
          on this issue except at a face-to-face meeting.
          SW: Sounds like we will not discuss httpRange-14 at this
          upcoming ftf meeting.

3. Not discussed

  3.1 New issues? (10 mins)

    1. [47]Summary from Stuart
    2. Completed action IJ 2003/06/16: Add issue [48]putMediaType-38 to
       issues list.

     [47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jun/0055.html
     [48] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#putMediaType-38

  3.2 Findings

   See also: [49]findings.

     [49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings

   Next steps for draft findings:
     * [50]How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML
       languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD?

     [50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html

   Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn [51]TB apple story into a finding.

     [51] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/30/AppleWA

   IJ: Not done; some of this in arch doc now, however.

  3.3 Issues that have associated action items

     * [52]URIEquivalence-15
          + SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [53]Tim Bray text has
            been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
            issue to pending state.
     * [54]HTTPSubstrate-16
          + Action RF 2003/02/06: Write a response to IESG asking whether
            the Web services example in the SOAP 1.2 primer is intended
            to be excluded from RFC 3205
          + See [55]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
     * [56]errorHandling-20
          + Action CL 2003/02/06: Write a draft finding on the topic of
            (1) early/late detection of errors (2) late/early binding (3)
            robustness (4) definition of errors (5) recovery once error
            has been signaled. Due first week of March.
     * [57]xlinkScope-23
          + Status report?
          + See [58]draft, and [59]SW message to CG chairs.
     * [60]contentPresentation-26
          + Action CL 2003/02/06: Create a draft finding in this space..
     * [61]IRIEverywhere-27
          + Action CL 2003/04/07: Revised position statement on use of
            IRIs. CL says to expect this by 21 April.
          + Action TBL 2003/04/28: Explain how existing specifications
            that handle IRIs are inconsistent. [62]TBL draft not yet
            available on www-tag.
          + See TB's[63]proposed step forward on IRI 27.
     * [64]fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML.
         1. Connection to content negotiation?
         2. Connection to opacity of URIs?
         3. No actions associated / no owner.
     * [65]binaryXML-30
          + Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on
            adding to survey.
          + Next steps to finding? See [66]summary from Chris.
     * [67]metadataInURI-31
          + Action SW 2003/02/06: Draft finding for this one. See [68]SW
            proposal
          + See also [69]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
            schemes instead of headers
     * [70]xmlIDSemantics-32
          + See [71]Chris Lilley draft finding.
            Action NW 2003/05/05: Point Core WG to CL finding once made
            public.
     * [72]xmlFunctions-34
          + Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
            XML Core work. See [73]email from TimBL capturing some of the
            issues.
     * [74]siteData-36
          + Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36

     [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [53] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4
     [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
     [55] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
     [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#errorHandling-20
     [57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
     [58] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
     [59] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
     [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
     [62] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0074.html
     [63] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html
     [64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
     [66] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
     [67] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [68] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003May/0050.html
     [69] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html
     [70] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
     [71] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
     [72] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
     [73] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html
     [74] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#siteData-36

4. Other actions

     * Action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that
       actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. IJ and PLH making
       substantial progress on this; hope to have something to show in
       May.

     _________________________________________________________________


    Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2003/06/24 13:41:48 $
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 09:42:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:38 UTC