Re: IRIs [was: [Minutes] 17 Mar 2003 TAG teleconf...]

On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, 12:34:49 AM, Paul wrote:


PG> At 17:52 2003 03 17 -0500, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:


>>                   Minutes of 17 Mar 2003 TAG teleconference


>>  2.2 New issue? Forward references / decoupling specs / IRIs
>>
>>   Related issues: [22]IRIEverywhere-27
>>
>>     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#IRIEverywhere-27
>>
>>   [timbl]
>>          Problems with XInclude moving to Rec include normative
>>          reference to Xpointer, charmod, and [23]IRI spec. (Never mind
>>          parse=xml)
>>
>>     [23] http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/
>>
>>   [DanC]
>>          (pointer to this thing that's been pending for too long?)
>>
>>   [DanC]
>>          we said IRIs are good? when/where?
>>
>>   [Ian]
>>          TBL: Xpointer referenced for issues about frag id; points to
>>          charmod for XML parsing; points to IRI spec with caveats.
>>
>>   [Chris]
>>          we said people should prepare for IRI, do it by copy and paste,
>>          and be ready to eratta once IRI was set in stone
>>          this seems to be exactly whatthey did
>>
>>   [Ian]
>>          TBL: XInclude spec says the WG plans to revise spec when IRI
>>          spec is finished.
>>
>>   [Chris]
>>          tbl: no IRI in test suite
>>
>>   [Ian]
>>          TBL: Arch questions - how to decouple the specs?
>>
>>   [DanC]
>>          (reviewing our records, I find no decisions re
>>          IRIEverywhere-27)
>>
>>   [Ian]
>>          TBL: No matter how the IRI spec comes out, it won't affect
>>          reviews of XPointer. But it will affect conformance of
>>          software. I think that what XInclude authors wrote in their
>>          spec may not be helpful since it may lead to operability
>>          problems when the spec is changed.
>>          NW: I thought I had been told that I could tell Core WG that
>>          TAG was in favor of IRIs.
>>          CL: I understood that, too.
>>
>>   [DanC]
>>          We have decided *exactly* what our records say we have decided,
>>          no?
>>
>>   [Chris]
>>          so, they did exactly the right think on IRI reference
>>
>>   [Ian]
>>          CL: IRIs not on Rec track; but is headed to being standard.
>>          CL: The piece that CL/MD/IJ wrote is now outdated.
>>          Action CL/IJ: Revise this IRI summary by next week; send to
>>          www-tag.
>>
>>   [Norm]
>>          Charmod references the IETF I-D IRI
>>
>>   [Chris]
>>          norm - thanks
>>
>>   [Ian]
>>          CL: Specs like XML Schema have similar wording; they cut and
>>          paste - don't make normative ref.
>>
>>   [DanC]
>>          For the record: The TAG has not made any decisions on
>>          IRIEverywhere. Hence I'm not party to any advice anybody's
>>          giving outside the TAG on this issue. I'd much prefer actions
>>          to advise other groups waited until we'd decided the issue.

So, we have evidence that the TAG disagrees about what it decided. Dan
seems to assert that we have made no decisions whatsoever (or that we
have not finished making assertions - he can clarify which). This was
news to myself, and to Norm, and (I think) to Tim Bray who believed
that we had indeed made some decisions.

PG> The XML Core WG has at least three specs going to PR within the month:
PG> XML 1.1, Namespaces 1.1, and XInclude 1.0.  On what we thought was
PG> direction from the TAG, we put IRIs into all these specs.

Well, I thought that was what we had told people was best current
practice, was exactly what had been done (in for example XInclude) -
in other words reference IRI by copy and paste, as existing specs from
XML Namespaces to XML Schema already do, but note that this comes from
IRI which is mature but not final, and to note - to give a heads up to
developers - that a future erratum will modify this usage to cope with
any changes that happen as IRI becomes finalized.

PG> Now that it's been said that the TAG didn't tell us to put IRIs into
PG> these specs, and given that having IRIs in these specs is causing
PG> trouble, what would be the effect of the XML Core WG's pulling IRIs
PG> out of these three specs and just going back to URIs?  Would that
PG> force us to go back to Last Call?  

PG> We have specs that, presumably, the W3C membership would like to see 
PG> become Recs, but it is unclear to me how to make that happen. 

I apologize for my part in any delay that this uncertainty may have
caused. I believe the correct resolution is to have further and
immediate discussion among the TAG to determine what has already been
agreed, what remains to be agreed, and to publish a draft TAG finding
that clarifies the current state of discussion.


-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org

Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 19:40:50 UTC