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

[Minutes] 27 Oct 2003 TAG teleconf (AC mtg, Versioning)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 29 Oct 2003 12:58:39 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1067450319.1107.271.camel@seabright>
Hello,

Minutes of the TAG's 27 Oct 2003 teleconference are
available as HTML [1] and as text below.

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/10/27-tag-summary.html

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

     Minutes of 27 October 2003 TAG teleconference

1. Administrative
     1. Roll call: SW (Chair), DO, DC (Scribe), TBL, NW, CL, RF, PC.
        Regrets: TB, IJ.
     2. Accepted the minutes of the 20 Oct teleconference
     3. Accepted this agenda
     4. Next meeting: 3 Nov 2003 teleconference. Tentative regrets: PC,
        NW, TBL.
Upcoming meeting topics:

      * 3 Nov: Review comments on 27 Oct Editor's Draft of Arch Doc

1.1 TAG update at Nov 2003 AC meeting.
     1. Completd action DO, CL 2003/10/20: Produce draft slides for AC
        presentation; for discussion at 27 Oct teleconference. (done)
[DanCon]



        DO reviews AC slide proposal
        DO: it was very rewarding comparing the current webarch doc to
        the one 6 months ago; much more fleshed out.
        PC: presentation duration? main message?
        DO: I gather our slot is 60min; present for 40 to 55, allow 5 to
        20min QA?
        PC: I don't see much about [... trouble capturing it...]
[Zakim]
        DanCon, you wanted to ask why so much time on readily-available
        factual material
[DanCon]
        PC: perhaps figure out some questions and work backward?
        DanC: a big question is: the TAG costs a lot; do you want to
        keep spending the resource that way?
        TimBL: what would you say to somebody in the corridoor?
        DanC: I found writing up the interaction with the Voice WG
        rewarding...
        DO: I hearw3452W5r'
        [scribe needs help or something]
        DanC: I don't see any need to tell the AC what's in the
        document, I guess.
        SW: what's the coolest thing? I liked the interaction with
        voice... hmm...
        PC: we've delegated a bunch.
        ... binary XML Workshop.
[timbl]
        No affect on i18n
[DanCon]
        ... bumping into I18N...
[timbl]
        ... 18n WG wouldn't take any notice
[DanCon]
        ... XML Core ID stuff.
        ... plus VoiceXML
        TimBL: we stirred up RFC3023...
        Chris: IANA... media type...
        [several]: ... IETF in general
        DO: I think it's important to talk about the new text...
        ... about how we've decided to get to Last Call ASAP, and what
        we've done about it
        DanC: hmm... the bulk of new text suggests to me that we're not
        headed for Last Call right away
        ACTION ChrisL: incorporate input on AC slides and produce
        another draft. ETA: Weds 

1.2 TAG Nov face-to-face meeting agenda
      * Expect to attend: SW, PC, NW, DC, CL, TBL, IJ
      * Do not expect to attend: RF
      * Don't know: TB

1.3 New issues list deployed
Completed action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that
actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. (done)


2. Technical (75min)
     1. Review of 3023-related actions
     2. Review of Architecture Document writing assignments
     3. XML Versioning

2.1 Review of 3023-related actions

        Actions 2003/10/08:
        - NW to liaise with Paul Grosso and the XML Core WG
        - TBL and DC to liaise with the IETF regarding obsoleting RFC
        3023.
        - TB to talk to authors of 3023 about inclusion as appendix in
        xml 1.1.
        - TBL and DC will talk to the Architecture Domain Lead.
        Action CL 2003/10/20: Draft update to 3023 for review by the TAG
        (on www-tag).


[DanCon]



        CL: I took the ball on a new draft, which prompted new input
        from Murata-san
        PC: summary?
        CL: deprecate text/xml due to charset foo; revises advice on
        when to use charset; ...
        http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#RFC3023Charset-21
[ChrisL]
        RFC3023Charset-21: Do all "shoulds" of RFC 3023 section 7.1
        apply?
[DanCon]


ACTION CL: draft XML mime type thingy with Murata-san. [Previous action
thus subsumed.]


2.2 Review of Architecture Document writing assignments
Latest draft is the 1 Oct 2003 WD of the Arch Doc.



TimBray
             1. Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Write up a paragraph for
                section 3 on syntax-based interoperability. (done). See
                also comments from Mike Champion
             2. Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Write a paragraph of
                rationale for why error handling good in the context of
                the Web. (done)
             3. Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Propose a revised
                paragraph to replace the "Furthermore" sentence in
                section 2.3 (done)
        
Ian
             1. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Add ed note to abstract
                that the abstract will be rewritten.
             2. Action IJ 2003/10/08: Starting from DO's diagram, create
                a diagram where the relationships and terms are linked
                back to the context where defined. Ensure that the
                relationships are in fact used in the narrative; any
                gaps identified? With DO, work on term relationship
                diagram.
             3. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Draft good practice note
                for 4.4.
             4. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: In 2.4, add story that
                shows how two classes of error can arise (inconsistency
                v. no frag id semantics defined). Frame story in terms
                of secondary resources.
             5. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Split persistency
                section into two and move http redirection para there,
                with appropriate rewrites.
             6. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Update OWL ref since in
                CR
             7. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Add a future work
                section for identifiers that the TAG expects to
                summarize various URI schemes and what agents can infer
                from the scheme.
        
David
             1. Completed action DO,NW 2003/10/08: Make the summary to
                replace 4.5 Extensibility and Versioning in the arch doc
                (done)
        
Chris
             1. Action CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved
                wording of language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list
                in 2.5.1.
        
Norm
             1. Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Write up text on
                information hiding/abstraction respect for before 2/3/4.
                (done)
             2. Action NW 2003/10/08: Revise QName finding. We will also
                add those two good practice notes to section 2: 
                     1. If you use Qnames, provide a mapping to URIs.
                     2. Don't define an attribute that can take either a
                        URI or a Qname since they are not syntactically
                        distinguishable."
             3. Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Rewrite the last
                paragraph of 4.9.2 to be less inflammatory about DTDs
                (done)
             4. Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Massage three paragraphs
                following good practice note about persistency at
                beginning of 2.6. (done)
        
Roy
             1. Action RF 2003/10/08: Explain "identifies" in RFC 2396.
        
TBL
             1. Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about
                extensibility related to "when to tunnel".
        
DC
             1. Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5
                showing examples of freenet and other systems. Progress;
                see URISchemes/freenet
        

2.3 XML Versioning
Current draft is 3 Oct 2003 finding

[DanCon]



        DO: Norm and I did some work on this last week and this; I sent
        a new draft just now...
        scribes thinks the relevant msg is "Proposed text for web arch
        section 4.5, extensibility and versioning"
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0137.html
        DO: intro/motivation text is new...
        ... diagram updated...
        DO: I note the discussion of how to handle terminology sections;
        leaving that aside for a bit...
        [I'm confused; I see "1.x" but DO is saying "4.x"]
[timbl]
        This note is proposed to be inserted in the arch doc? (TBL
        confirms by reading from abstract)
[Stuart]
        s/x.y/4.x+5.y (ish)
[DanCon]
        DO: this text is shorter than the finding; xml-schema-specific
        stuff is left out
        CL: what to do with the schema-specific stuff?
        NW: it's still in the finding, which we haven't updated...
        DanC: I'd like to discuss the thesis; is this it? "The primary
        motivation to allow instances of a language to be extended is to
        decentralize the task of designing, maintaining, and
        implementing extensions."
        NW: that, plus you can't add extensibility later. gotta do it up
        front
        [scribe was discussing, missed a whole pile]
        SW: I see lots of good practice boxes; did you try to minimize
        those?
        NW: no; I promoted all the boxes from the finding; perhaps we'll
        lose a few
        PC: this "nobody but the owner can change a namespace"... hm...
        Query added stuff to XML Schema namespace...
        DO: hmm!
        TBL: with knowledge/consent?
        NW: recall the Query WG decided users can't add functions to the
        fn namespace
        PC is excused at this point.
[Stuart]
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0029.html
[Roy]
        DC and DO: debate pro and con regarding defining terms on first
        use or separate terminology section
[DanCon]
        [... on style of tems...]
        DO: we've spent a bunch of writing time on this; not sure how
        much more I'm interested to do.
        DC: I said when this versioning stuff came up "sounds like an
        interesting book"; I think we're maybe 1/3rd done writing this.
        I still have serious problems with the 1st sentence.
        SW earlier asked about whether to review it separately as part
        of the arch doc...
        [several]: put it in
        DC: I shopped this versioning stuff around; it's quite popular.
        Folks seem to want it.
        TimBL: I think people want this set of terms nailed down; usage
        of "instance" in some places looks a bit informal in a way that
        might be misleading. Also, how much of this is XML specific?
        [draws analogy between HTTP URIs and URIs ala XML formats and
        formats]
        NW: I think tim is asking for more precision in this section
        than we've held ourselves to in other sections
        timbl: there are a bunch of new terms here; they merit the same
        review as other stuff
        DO: how about: pls give us comments weds, NW and I do another
        draft by [missed it], then we hand to Ian
[Norm]
        DC: extensibility and versioning are not cost free
[DanCon]
        "The primary motivation to allow instances of a language to be
        extended is to decentralize the task of designing, maintaining,
        and implementing extensions."
[Stuart]
        Hmm... here's a candidate for the thesis: "The primary
        motivation to allow instances of a language to be extended is to
        decentralize the task of designing, maintaining, and
        implementing extensions. It allows senders to change the
        instances without going through a centralized authority."


from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0029.html


________________________________________________________________________

The TAG does not expect to cover these issues


2.5 Findings
See also TAG findings home page.

      * whenToUseGet-7: Finding: URIs, Addressability, and the use of
        HTTP GET and POST
      * contentPresentation-26: Draft finding: Separation of semantic
        and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
        architecturally sound
      * contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of Client handling of
        MIME headers
             1. Completed action RF 2003/09/15: Proposed substitute text
                in light of previous comments on charset param. (Done)
             2. Comments from Philipp Hoschka about usability issues
                when user involved in error correction. Is there a new
                Voice spec out we can point to for example behavior?
             3. Comments from Chris Lilley
             4. Lots of comments from Martin Duerst
      * metadataInURI-31
      * deepLinking-25

2.2.1 Expected new findings
      * siteData-36
      * abstractComponentRefs-37

________________________________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2003/10/29 17:52:58 $
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 12:58:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:22 GMT