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

[Minutes] 29 Sep 2003 TAG teleconf (Arch Doc, mtg planning)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 29 Sep 2003 18:19:59 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1064873998.18429.13.camel@seabright>

The minutes of the 29 Sep 2003 TAG teleconference are
available as HTML [1] and as text below.

 _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/29-tag-summary.html


                Minutes of 29 September 2003 TAG teleconference

   Nearby: [4]IRC log | [5]Teleconference details  [6]issues list
   ([7]handling new issues) [8]www-tag archive

      [4] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/29-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/Member/tag/2003Jul/0054.html
      [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/

1. Administrative

    1. Roll call: SW (Chair), TBL, DC, TB, NW, DO, RF, PC, IJ (Scribe).
       Regrets: CL.
    2. Accepted the minutes of the [9]15 Sep teleconf
    3. Accept this [10]agenda
    4. Next meeting: 6-8 Oct ftf meeting in Bristol

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/15-tag-summary.html
     [10] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/29-tag.html

  1.1 TAG participation in Tech Plenary 2004 (1-5 March 2004, France)

   Pros: Interaction with other groups, welcome new TAG participants.
   Cons: Competing meeetings.
    1. There was clear support for some sort of TAG involvement at the
       Tech Plenary.
    2. There was some support, but also some opposition to the TAG
       organizing a ftf meeting during that week due to conflicting

          SW: Should we meet? Should we interact with other groups?
          DC: Yes, please, let's meet.
          DO: We could meet with WSDL WG to talk about issue 37

          meeting with WSDL folks seems cool.

          DO: Yes, let's meet too.
          PC: I'm against meeting then. I'll be busy for at least two
          days since Chair. One of my groups may even meet on the
          weekend. Also lots of last call docs will be around; likely to
          be heavily booked.
          NW: I'm also overbooked during that time.

          what is our quorum for meeting?

          PC: I'd prefer to do what we did last year - to meet at an
          alternate site before the TP so that people running for
          election could either be notified during the ballot period when
          the TAG would be meeting.

          I prefer to have consensus to meet. I'd rather not meet over
          anybody's objection Regrets are one thing. objections are

          If no TAG teleconf, who won't come to France: TB
          Who would be at risk: DO, SW
          SW: Then I will let TP organizers know that the TAG does not
          expect to hold a ftf meeting during that time. However, I'd
          like to discuss (over the next couple of weeks) what the TAG's
          contributions could be to the tech plenary day.

          [PaulC shows draft agenda of when some groups are scheduled to

          DO: I would much rather meet in France with a subset of the TAG
          (large majority) than to have more trips.

          For the record, I don't object to meeting in Cannes. It'll be
          awkward if we do, but that's fair.

          PC: I'd like to encourage the TAG to participate in the
          organization of the tech plenary itself. I won't be on the
          organization committee for the TP this year.
          NW: I don't object to TAG meeting ftf during that week. But I'm
          booked solid for now.

          One of the reasons I wanted to meet was because WSDL will be
          there and we have an issue that would probably be helped by
          meeting together for a few hours

          SW: I think last year more people had more conflicting meeting
          schedules last year.
          RF: This would be the first meeting after the election, right?
          SW: Yes.
          RF: The idea was to have departing participants also
          participate in transitional meeting.
          SW: I therefore plan to set expectations that we'd like to
          meet, but some hurdles.
          PC: We can postpone until our ftf meeting...
          Action SW: Draft summary based on monthly reports for TAG.1.2
          TAG highlights from previous six months (for AC meeting)

  1.2 TAG update to AC for Nov 2003 AC meeting

   See [11]previous highlights (Member-only).

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/19-sb-COO-Summary.html#Technical2

          Action SW: Draft summary based on monthly reports for TAG.

  1.3 Bristol FTF Agenda

    1. Primarily focused on Arch Doc, TAG findings.
    2. 9h - 17h M, T. (Not sure for W).
    3. [12]Meeting page

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2003/10/06-tag-mtg


          SW: I've not yet done a detailed agenda page. But the meeting
          will focus on what's required to go to last call. If we get
          done early enough, we'll work on findings and have time to do
          TBL: I hope to be able to join remotely for part of the
          SW: We expect to have audio; I'll check about video this week.
          TBL: I'd be willing to visit an HP facility in Cambridge (MA).
          [DC has sent regrets]

          Thanks to SW for all the meeting logistical arrangements.

          DanC, you wanted to ask where issue namespaceDocument-8 is
          w.r.t. critical-path for last call and ftf agenda

          DC: Was namespace-8 critical path for last call?
          TBray: PC is creating finding + sound bite for web arch.
          DC: If I can't read materials now, I may argue for not making
          any decisions on this issue at the face-to-face meeting. My
          position on issue 8 is that if we do nothing, that's
          acceptable. There are a lot of somethings that are not ok to
          me. If we have some spec that doesn't have a clear mapping to
          RDF, that would be a step backward.

          SW: Look forward to seeing those in England next week.

2. Technical

  2.1 Architecture Document

   IJ presented some of the bigger changes in the [13]26 Sep 2003
   Editor's Draft. Then the TAG walked through the [14]review comments
   about which the editor had questions.

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030926/
     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0186.html


          SW: Can we approve publication of [15]26 Sep 2003 Editor's
          Draft (with today's modifications) as a TR page draft?

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030926/

          grr you don't need both quotes and <code> for URIs in stories

          quite, TBray

          Abstract rewrite
          DC: Abstract too long, but nothing critical IMO.
          TBray: I'm ok with the abstract (just a couple of stylistic

          abstract is too long for my tastes, but I don't see anything
          technically incorrect

          words "to be" after the colon in 3rd para of abstract are
          grammatically strained, will suggest something smoother

          IJ: I think people would like something more concrete about
          what info space and info system are.
          DC: Though I used to not care between info space and info
          system, I have a mild preference for talking about info space
          over info system.
          TBL: I think we're going to have to make a bigger distinction
          between HTTP Web and other systems.

          IJ: #1 in [16]review comments is closed I think.
          #2: SW - I think that this is a linguistic misunderstanding,
          should be "per URI scheme"

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0186.html

          The endnote is wrong

          DC: TOo much detail - "The browser uses its configuration2 to
          determine how to locate the identified information, which might
          be via a cache of prior retrieval actions, by contacting an
          intermediary (e.g., a proxy server), or by direct access to the
          server identified by the URI."
          SW: I propose to delete footnote 2.
          TBray: yes.
          DC: No need to talk about browser config in the intro.
          RF: I'm ok with not talking about browser config in the intro.
          I don't want to give the impression that the browser makes some
          decisions, dont' just look at URI spec (e.g., can look at

          hmm... yeah... where to talk about browser config and caches?
          not the intro, but ... hmm.

          SW: The right place for this is in the interactions section.
          The expansion should be in that section.
          DC: Sounds plausible.
          RF: Sure.
          DC: I don't want to queue up a bunch of stuff before
          #3) Proposed to add reference to RFC2396 in endnote 3.
          #4) Cause/effect backwards in describing "link".


     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0128.html

          "When a representation of one resource refers to another
          resource with a URI, a link is formed between the two
          SW: That suggests that the presence of a reference that causes
          the link to form, as opposed to "There exists a link, therefore
          there's a URI ref in a representation."
          RF: I agree with Stuart. But there's an issue if you have
          several representations, some of which have links and some of
          which don't. I don't believe strongly in either view.
          TBray: I'm much happier saying that the link is formed by
          presence of URI ref.
          TBL: Rather : "When there is a URI ref in a representation, we
          often call that a link."

          I'm happy with SW's or TBL's wording. I like the coupling of
          links with representations rather than resources.

          TBL: In the use of the Web for global hypertext, the use of a
          URI ref in a representation is called a link.
          DC: So this shouldn't be introduced in this section...
          TBL: I'm ok to start off with talking about most popular case
          rather than an abstration.
          DC: You don't get network effects without any links.
          RF: The link is one directional, but the relationship is

          changing "formed" to "represented" might help

          Agree with DanC

          "formed" has a before/after feel to it. odd.

          agree with danc

          Yes that would work for me

          DC: "This represents a link between the two resources."

          When a representation of one resource refers to another
          resource with a URI reference, this represents a link between
          the two resources."

          IJ: What about s/URI/URI ref here?
          DC: Could work.
          TBray: I disagree about using URI ref here.

          When a representation of one resource refers to another
          resource with a URI, this represents a link between the two

          TBray: The representation *logically* includes a URI.
          #5) 2.4.1 Secondary Resources...

          #5 in

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0186.html

          s/the/a/ in "the URI for the secondary resource"

          SW: This implies that you need to know the media type.
          DC: No, it doesn't. It says "if you know it."
          Text in question in 26 Sep draft: "The syntax and semantics of
          fragment identifiers are defined by the set of representations
          that might result from a retrieval action on the primary
          resource. Fragment identifier semantics differ among format
          specifications. The presence of a fragment identifier in a URI
          does not imply that a retrieval action will take place."
          TBray: I've flagged this in a bunch of drafts. I think that the
          first sentence is either incomprehensible or wrong. I think
          that the syntax and semantics are defined by the relevant
          documentation, and interpreted in the context of the
          representation that you get.

          defined --> determined ?

          TBL: I think the first sentence is a bit perverse for the
          following reason - Depending by the format .... The set of
          things that the frag id could identify are defined by the set
          of different representations you get. On the other hand, if the
          semantics are different, then we have a bug.

          DanC, you wanted to agree that 2.4.1 is not right. can we just
          make an editor's note and move on? our target is a decision to
          publish, not substantive technical discussion, yes?

          TBL: I would support deleting the first sentence and leaving
          and editor's note in its place.

          +1 delete "The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers are

          TBray: +1 to delete

          I would just change "defined" to "determined"

          TBL: I don't think you solve the problem that way. There's an
          implication that one representation suffices; you need to know
          a set.
          RF: You do need to know the set.
          TBL: No, I only need to know the one I got.
          TBray: That's right.
          RF: In that context, maybe. But in the RDF context, you need to
          know the set of references.
          TBray: The architectural intent is that the semantic of the
          identifier be consistent. But in the microscale is that the
          interpretation depends on the representation you get.
          #6) "For schemes that do specify the use of fragment
          People are satisfied with deleted.
          #7) Good Practice Note: Content Negotiation With Fragments.
          IJ: I didn't change back to previous draft.
          "Good practice: Content negotiation with fragments"
          s/and who use/who use/
          DC: I second the point made by Larry in email that
          "authorities" is [scribe missed]. Talking about "the owner" of
          a URI [DC didn't get to finish.]. The good practice note is not
          talking about HTTP space.

          DanC, you wanted to note that "Authorities responsible for
          minting a URI" is too narrow

          DC: You can narrow the principle to HTTP URIs, but as stated,
          not narrowed to HTTP space.
          TBL: In practice, I haven't seen people use fragids with msg
          RF: I disagree with LM's comments but for different reasons.

          In practice we are talking largely about HTTP.

          #8) 2.5.2
          Leave as is.
          Section 2.6: Two paras creating discomfort:
          - Moby Dick.
          - Ambiguity example.
          SW: Ambiguity example closely tied to linguistic ambiguity.
          Mark this para with editor's note as needing attention.
          TBL: I don't like the Moby Dick example since it's criticizing
          an English statement.
          #10) 4.5 Binary and Textual Data Formats
          SW: make forward reference more narrow to 4.10.6 (not all of
          #11) Present table of notes after TOC as three lists.
          #12) Choose a different icon (smaller) to indicate story. Roy
          seems to concur.
          [Back on 4.4] Text is defined as being sequence of chars, not
          something that is marked "text/*".
          TBL: Distinction between application is used to mark up text
          and applications where XML is used to mark up any kind of data.
          This connects to "text/". The argument for using "text/" is
          that when there's a lot of text content, show people the text
          content. Not necessarily the case for apps where most of the
          data is not text.
          TBray: I've not seen discussion about changing the definition
          of things you can do in the "text" (MIME) tree.

          (timbl is part of multiple we's)

          TBL: We had already asked them NOT to change 3023 since it was
          to be included in a W3C spec.
          TBray: And I got my ear chewed off when I forgot. We need to
          make up our minds - do we try to fix 3023 or not?
          [TAG decides to return to Arch Doc rather than answer that
          SW: Any objections to publishing?

          It's better than the last one, +1

          Resolved: Request publication of TR draft.
          IJ: I will make conservative edits before requesting
          publication for approximately 1 October.

  2.1.1 RFC3023

          DC: There's an IETF/W3C meeting in 10 days. I'd like to spend
          10 minutes on RFC3023

          Leave charset on text/xml; remove charset from application/*xml

          TBray: 3023 has been out there for a while. I think that fixing
          it at this point is better than not fixing it. There seems to
          be rough consensus about what needs to be done: deprecate
          "text/" for XML formats.
          DC: My preference is to have this come out of a W3C spec for an
          XML Mime type.
          NW: I think the Core WG is trying to wrap up the blueberry
          DC: The MIME registry currently points to an IETF spec; would
          be more straightforward if it pointed to a W3C Rec.
          TBL: Suboptimal to have the MIME registry point to two specs at
          two orgs, which undergo different processes.
          TBray: Can we have a chat with editors of 3023.
          DC: Sounds good.
          TBL: I'd like to make changes in a W3C document.


   The TAG did not do anything below.

    2.1.2 Review of actions related to Architecture Document

   Completed action items:
     * Completed action TB 2003/08/18: Bring some Vancouver ftf meeting
       photos to IJ attention (of whiteboard, re: CL action about
       illustration of two resources). Done, but IJ has not incorporated
       images in 18 Sep draft.
     * Completed action TB 2003/08/04: Write a definition of "XML-based"
       (Done; in 18 Sep Arch Doc).
     * Completed action IJ 2003/08/04: s/machine-readable/something like:
       optimized for processors, w/ defn that includes notion that it can
       be processed unattended (by a person).
     * Completed action TB and CL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement
       sentence in section regarding advantages of text formats.
       Please confirm that this is done in 18 Sep draft.

   Open action items:
     * Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 3. From 21 July ftf meeting,
       due 18 August.
     * Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of
       "[19]Conversations and State" into section to be produced by RF.
     * Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about
       extensibility related to "when to tunnel".
     * Action CL 2003/07/21: Create an illustration of two resources, one
       designated by URI without fragment, and one designated by same URI
       with fragment...
     * Action IJ, CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of
       language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.
     * Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5 showing
       examples of freenet and other systems.

     [19] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conversations

   The following action items were follow-up from the 22 July
   face-to-face meeting in Vancouver:
     * Identification and resources
         1. TBL 2003/08/21: Write replacement text for Moby Dick example
            in section 2.6 (on URI ambiguity). Is this done in [20]TBL's
     * Representations
         1. TB, IJ 2003/08/21: Integrate findings. What does this mean?

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/tim#URI-persistence

  2.2 Findings

   See also [21]TAG findings home page. If time permits, the TAG will
   review these.
     * [22]11 Sep 2003 draft of Deep Linking in the WWW
          + Action TB 2003/09/15: Ask Lauren Wood to review German text
            to see if applicable.
          + Pending action IJ 2003/09/15: Take back to Comm Team
            publicity of this document.
     * [23]whenToUseGet-7: Announced TAG acceptance of 22 September 2003
       draft of [24]URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET and
          + Action DC 2003/09/15: Provide TAG with pointers into WS specs
            where issue of safe operations is manifest.
          + Action DO 2003/09/15: Ask WSDL WG to look at finding; ask
            them if marking operations as safe in WSDL is one of their
          + See [25]comments from Noah, however
     * [26]contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of [27]Client
       handling of MIME headers
         1. Completed action TB 2003/09/15: Draft a Note to authors of
            RFC 3023 cc'ing www-tag about concerns regarding charset
            asking about chances of getting this fixed. ([28]Done)
         2. Completed action RF 2003/09/15: Proposed substitute text in
            light of [29]previous comments on charset param. ([30]Done)
         3. [31]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?
         4. [32]Comments from Chris Lilley
         5. Lots of [33]comments from Martin Duerst
         6. Change "MIME headers" to "server metadata" in title?
     * Completed action NW, DO 2003/09/08: Produce new draft of
       Extensibility/Versioning finding ([34]done)

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings/
     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/deeplinking-20030911.html
     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030922
     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0160.html
     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0042.html
     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0051.html
     [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0043.html
     [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0076.html
     [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0113.html
     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0108.html
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning

    2.2.1 Draft findings that require more discussion

     * [35]xmlIDSemantics-32:
         1. [36]Chris Lilley draft finding.
         2. Action CL 2003/06/30: Revise this draft finding with new
            input from reviewers.
     * [37]contentPresentation-26: Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a
       draft finding on content/presentation. From 21 July ftf meeting,
       revision due 8 August.
     * [38]metadataInURI-31: 8 July 2003 draft of "[39]The use of
       Metadata in URIs"
          + Action SW 2003/07/21: Produce a revision of this finding
            based on Vancouver ftf meeting discussion.
          + Action DO 2003/07/07: Send rationale about why WSDL WG wants
            to peek inside the URI.
          + See also [40]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
            schemes instead of headers
          + See comments from [41]Mark Nottingham and [42]followup from
            Noah M.
     * Draft finding from NW and DO: [43]Versioning XML Languages, 18 Sep

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31
     [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html
     [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0048.html
     [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0055.html
     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning

    2.2.2 Expected new findings

    1. [44]contentPresentation-26: Action CL (and IJ from ftf meeting)
       2003/06/02: Make available a draft finding on
       content/presentation. From 21 July ftf meeting, revision due 8
    2. Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn [45]TB apple story into a finding.

     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [45] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/30/AppleWA

  2.3 Issues

   The TAG does not expect to discuss these issues at this meeting.

    2.3.1 Identifiers ([46]URIEquivalence-15 , [47]IRIEverywhere-27)

     [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27

     * [48]URIEquivalence-15
          + SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [49]Tim Bray text has
            been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
            issue to pending state.
     * [50]IRIEverywhere-27
          + Action CL 2003/04/07: Revised position statement on use of
          + Action TBL 2003/04/28: Explain how existing specifications
            that handle IRIs are inconsistent. [51]TBL draft not yet
            available on www-tag.
          + See TB's [52]proposed step forward on IRI 27.

     [48] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [49] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4
     [50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
     [51] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0074.html
     [52] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html

    2.3.2 Qnames, fragments, and media types([53]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6,
    [54]fragmentInXML-28, [55]abstractComponentRefs-37, [56]putMediaType-38)

     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [55] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

     * [57]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
            desideratum ([58]RQ-23).
     * [59]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.
     * [60]abstractComponentRefs-37
          + Action DO 2003/06/23: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask
            them for their analysis.
     * [61]putMediaType-38

     [57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [58] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
     [59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

    2.3.3 New and other Issues requested for discussion.
    ([62]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33, [63]RDFinXHTML-35, [64]siteData-36 plus
    possible new issues)

     [62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     [63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
     [64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36

   Existing Issues:
     * [65]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     * [66]RDFinXHTML-35
     * [67]siteData-36
          + Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36

     [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     [66] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
     [67] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36

    2.3.4 Miscellaneous issues

     * [68]namespaceDocument-8
          + Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue,
            pointing to the RDDL Note. See [69]comments from Paul
            regarding TB theses. From 21 July ftf meeting, due 31 August.
          + Action PC 2003/09/08: Providing WebArch text as well for this
          + Action TB 2003/09/15: Add "Hello World" example to next draft
            of RDDL Spec (i.e., to edited version of [70]RDDL draft 4).
          + Action TB 2003/09/15: Produce schemaware for RDDL spec once
            TAG has consensus on the syntax.
          + Completed action SW 2003/09/16: Ping PC on the status of his
            actions ([71]Done)
          + Refer to draft TAG [72]opinion from Tim Bray on the use of
            URNs for namespace names.
     * [73]uriMediaType-9
          + IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
            (see [74]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?]
     * [75]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 [76]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
     * [77]xlinkScope-23
          + See [78]draft, and [79]SW message to CG chairs.
          + Action CL 2003/06/30: Ping the chairs of those groups asking
            for an update on xlinkScope-23.
     * [80]binaryXML-30
          + Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on
            adding to survey.
          + Action IJ 2003/07/21: Add link from issues list binaryXML-30
            to upcoming workshop
          + Next steps to finding? See [81]summary from Chris.
     * [82]xmlFunctions-34
          + Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
            XML Core work. See [83]email from TimBL capturing some of the
     * [84]charmodReview-17
         1. Action SW 2003/09/08: Follow up with I18N folks on status of
            TAG's charmod comments.
         2. [85]Mail from DC to I18N WG in light of new Charmod draft
     * [86]rdfURIMeaning-39

     [68] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag#namespaceDocument-8
     [69] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
     [70] http://www.tbray.org/tag/rddl4.html
     [71] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Sep/0045.html
     [72] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0003.html
     [73] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
     [74] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html
     [75] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
     [76] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
     [77] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
     [78] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
     [79] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
     [80] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
     [81] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
     [82] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
     [83] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html
     [84] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#charmodReview-17
     [85] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Sep/0019.html
     [86] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#rdfURIMeaning-39

3. Other actions

     * Action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that
       actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. PLH has put the
       issues list in production; see the [87]DOM issues list.

     [87] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/09-dom-core-issues/issues.html


    Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2003/09/29 22:14:43 $

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 18:22:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:39 UTC