W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2004

Summary of TAG activity from 10 May to 28 June 2004

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 17:01:26 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1088719274.2347.60.camel@seabright>
Dear www-tag,

This is a summary of the TAG's activity from 10 May 2004 (end
date of the previous summary [1]) to 28 June 2004.

The TAG held four teleconferences and one face-to-face meeting
during this period. Summaries of those meetings are linked from
the TAG home page [2].

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004May/0036
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/

0) In Memoriam

  The TAG mourns the loss of Mario Jeckle. Paul Cotton, on behalf
  of the TAG, organized a floral tribute for the family. Words from
  Tim Berners-Lee were read at the funeral.

1) Architecture Document

  The TAG continues to process Last Call comments on the
  Architecture Document. 
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/
  
  The Editor made available the 8 June 2004 Editor's Draft, which
  takes into account TAG decisions from the May face-to-face
  meeting. The 8 June draft is available at:
    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040608/

2) Issues

  The TAG accepted two issues for its general issues list
  during this period:

    mediaTypeManagement-45:  What is the appropriate level of
                     granularity of the media type mechanism?

    xml11Names-46:  Impact of changes to XML 1.1 on other XML 
                    Specifications



  The TAG reached a decision on one issue:

    fragmentInXML-28:  Use of fragment identifiers in XML.

       The TAG decided that in general the fragment part of a URI
       could be used to refer to abstractions as well as
       syntactic fragments of a representation - modulo the
       relevant media-type specification/registration.



  The TAG moved the following issues to the deferred state, awaiting
  action from another group:


    HTTPSubstrate-16:  Should HTTP be used as a substrate protocol?
                       Does W3C agree with RFC 3205?

      The TAG decided to defer this issue pending any attempt to
      enforce RFC3205.


    xmlIDSemantics-32: How should the problem of identifying ID
                       semantics in XML languages be addressed in
                       the absence of a DTD?

      The XML Core WG is considering this issue.


    binaryXML-30: Standardize a "binary XML" format?

      The XML Binary Characterization Working Group is considering
      this issue.



  The issues were closed during this period as the remaining
  actions associated with them were decided:


    whenToUseGet-7: (1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in
             XForms (2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like
             method? GET plus a body?)

  Details about discussions and related actions are available in
  the meeting minutes linked from the TAG's home page. The TAG's
  issues list is available at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist

3) Findings

  The TAG approved one revised finding during this period:

   "How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML
   languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD?

    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32-20040512.html

  The TAG continues to work on a number of other draft
  findings. More information about TAG findings is available at:
    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings

4) Communication

   The TAG continued discussion with the I18N Working Group
   on their Character Model specifications.

5) Upcoming

  The TAG next meets face-to-face 9-11 August in Ottawa, Canada.

For co-Chairs Stuart Williams and Tim Berners-Lee,
Ian Jacobs

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

Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 18:01:31 GMT

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