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

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

From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:10:48 -0500
Message-ID: <E7AC4500EAB7A442ABA7521D1881439707954416@tor-msg-01.northamerica.corp.microsoft.com>
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 GMT

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