- From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:10:48 -0500
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> TBL: with knowledge/consent? The minutes are missing my/Norm's answer to this question: PC and Norm: Yes, we discussed with the XML Schema WG and ensured they were okay with this addition to their namespace. /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: public-tag-announce-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tag-announce- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ian B. Jacobs > Sent: October 29, 2003 12:59 PM > To: www-tag@w3.org > Subject: [Minutes] 27 Oct 2003 TAG teleconf (AC mtg, Versioning) > > 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 14:12:48 UTC