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

[Minutes] 12 July 2004 (IRI, xmlChunk-44, Webarch LC review comme nts)

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:34:34 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E8080398470F@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org


The minutes of the TAG's 12 July 2004 teleconference are available as HTML
[1] and as text below.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/12-tag-summary.html


                  Minutes of 12 July 2004 TAG teleconference

   Nearby: [3]Teleconference details - [4]issues list ([5]handling new
   issues) - [6]www-tag archive

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/#remote
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html
      [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0054.html
      [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/

0. A new addition

   Resolved The TAG extends its heartiest support and congratulations to
   Ian and Valerie on the arrival of their daughter.

1. Administrative

    1. Roll call. SW (chair), NW (scribe), CL, DC, RF, TBL, PC. Regrets:
       IJ :-)
    2. Resolved to accept the [7]minutes of the 28 June teleconf?
    3. Accepted this [8]agenda?
    4. Next meeting: 19 July. Norm Walsh to Chair. Likely regrets: TBL,
       PC. Regrets from IJ.
    5. Action SW 2004/06/28: Send an ack re DO/TB editing roles on
       www-tag. [9]Done

      [7] http://www.w3.org/2004/06/28-tag-summary.html
      [8] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/12-tag.html
      [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0007.html

  1.0.1 AOB

    1. SW reported that he had asked PC who as agreed to prepare our
       monthly summaries for the AC.

  1.1 Meeting schedule

   Action TAG 2004/06/07: Send summer regrets to TAG list.
    1. Ottawa meeting update
         1. Action NW/PC 2004/06/14: Prepare ftf meeting agenda. See
            [10]email from Paul

     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jun/0028.html


          No updates for Ottawa local arrangements.
          NW/PC will publish an agenda shortly after 21 July
          Regrets from DO

  1.3 TAG Charter

   Pending further updates from Team/AB


          No news

2. Technical

   See also [11]open actions by owner and [12]open issues.

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html
     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1

  2.1 Action Item List

    1. Proposal on done/moot action items: see [13]email from SW

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jul/0007.html

   CL reports completing his action

  2.2 IRI draft status in IETF

    1. Action CL 2004/06/28: Tidy up [14]draft and send to I18N WG,
       copying www-tag (as a response to [15]Addison).

     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jun/0085.html
     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jun/0015.html


          uri for my closed action

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2004Jul/0006.html

  2.3 httpRange-14 status

    1. Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close
       httpRange-14, text for document.
       Propose: Roy's action close by [17]email. Will need to reschedule
       httpRange-14 when TBL available - single issue telcon? guest?

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004May/0049.html


          Action TBL/RF continued

  2.4 [18]XMLChunk-44

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#xmlChunk-44

    1. Action NW 2004/05/12:
       "Write up a named equivalence function based on today's discussion
       (e.g., based on infoset, augmented with xml:lang/xml:base, not
       requiring prefixes, etc.)."
       [19]See email from Norm
    2. Next steps...??

     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jun/0026.html


          NW action complete
          NW suggests we could add markup and turn it into a finding
          Some discussion of what the appropriate next steps are. Some
          concern expressed that the world won't care.

          asking I18N seems worthwhile

          explicitly saying that lang would have been a good infoset
          property would be clearer. it should have been but isn't.
          timbl++ on the 'it would have been nice if' finding. Valuable
          for next round of rechartering for example

          yup. "if we're ever back in this design space, let's do it this
          way next time..."

          i hea timbl proposing this and Chris and Paul seconding

          Some discussion of possible next steps

          don't hear any contrary opinions

          I note this unspecified nature of infoset equality is relevant
          to a (last call?) comment I sent re XQuery
          PROPOSED: nw write up xmlchunk proposal, adding a bit of
          history: how we got here, where we might go if we had it to do
          over again


          found my comments on xquery that are relevant to infoitem
          equality: XML query constructors: not well-defined


          TBL wants emphasis on where we might go if were doing it again


          you might look at "if we had it to do over again" as, rather
          "in case we're back this way again"

          ACTION: NW to (re)draft his mail as a finding along those lines

  2.5 Web Architecture Document Last Call

  2.5.1 Heartbeat Requirement

   Note publication of 5th July 2004 TR page [21]WD See [22]email from IJ

     [21] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040705/
     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0001.html


          TAG thanks IJ for publishing the new WD

  2.5.2 Reviews

   See the 8 [23]June 2004 Editor's Draft.
     * Action CL 2004/05/14 revised to:
       Rewrite story at beginning of 3.3.1 and paragraph that follows.
       After those edits, review the rest of section 3.3.1 in the 8 June
       draft to see if it makes sense as a whole.
     * Actions from 2004/06/14:
       DC to review section 2 of 8 June draft. (Done)
       PC to review sections 1, 5, and 6 of 8 June draft.
       CL to review section 4 of 8 June draft.
       SW, NW to review entire 8 June draft. (SW [24]Done[partial]
       [25]PDF, [26]HTML)
       [Will add references to any other completed reviews submitted for

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040608/
     [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jun/0028.html

          My review is pending. It got lost in F2F meetings and then

          CL action continued
          PC action continued
          NW action continued
          (all this is under 2.5.2: reviews of the arch doc)

          the Query WG responded, Norm. They said "indeed, those things
          that look like functions aren't functions, in the f(x,y) =
          f(x,y) sense. Deal."

          SW: Meaning and authority comments are probably the biggest
          SW (of the ones I sent)


     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0005.html

          DanC, you wanted to ask about moving generalities to the end...

     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jun/0020.html

          ah... done. [29]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040705/

     [29] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040705/

          TAG moves on to discuss SW comment #20




          SW: [skw20]I think I'd make the point that protocols promote
          interoperability while API's promote application/implementation
          portability. Both are important. The two become entangled when
          message content contains scripts or behaviours that the
          recipient is expected to execute. To be interoperable the
          script writer has to assume the existence of a run-time
          environment and may have to probe for the existence of API
          features in order to be fully interoperable.
          PC: I think the point is that APIs are different than protocols

          i agree with norm, that is the main point

          TBL: When characterizing either case, we're talking about the
          interface between two software modules. APIs are modules in the
          same process, protocols are greatly separated modules, perhaps
          not even on the same machine.
          TBL: Because they are remote, the practical arrangements around
          protocols are very different.
          TBL: APIs can rely on being updated monolithically.
          TBL: It's worth noting particularly that the protocol will
          outlive the applications.
          TBL: It's a mistake to talk about which you should do because
          you always have to do both
          TBL: You still have APIs between software modules in the same
          TBL: The web is better designed because it's done in terms of
          protocols. Some folks have tried to do APIs in this space and
          have found that it's a mistake.
          SW: My point was that APIs aid in code portability and
          protocols aid in application portability.
          Stuart: did I get that right?

          Nor... APIs aid portability, protocols aid interoperability.

          ACTION: SW to propose concrete changes to the text along these
          SKW 21
          SKW 21: Delete "In order to communicate internally, a community
          agrees (to a reasonable extent) on a set of terms and their



          SW: I think it opens up problems.
          DC: It opened actual problems that we've subsequently resolved
          DC: It used to say "across communities"
          SW: I won't push too hard, I thought it opened philosophical

          that would imply a need to define 'communities' ....

          SW: Withdraws comment.

          wondering how Ian communicated changes to the readership, I
          find lots of details in

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/changes

          SW: (SKW38) I'm not sure what point is being made
          NW: This is more text that went through a lot of massaging to
          be acceptable Discussion of how we moving forward.


          SW: We have a last call document in December, how do we keep
          track of what comments apply to which documents
          CL: Essentially, all of the comments are relevant to the last
          call draft.
          DC: We should make some best effort to deal with all of them
          and then do another last call
          TBL: We have to alert people who sent comments we didn't even
          DC: I disagree.
          PC: You mean we won't publish a D-o-C?
          DC: Right.
          CL: It would be much better to be able to at least say which
          ones we don't think we addressed
          TBL: Or if we've redraft so we can't really tell
          NW: We should use "overtaken by events"
          PC: We should be telling people that now, if we think it's

          yes, "we should" be doing lots of stuff. I only take issue with
          "we must"



          We need to solve the issue list management problem

          it would be _nice_ to solve the issue list management problem.
          we do _not_ _need_ to solve it.

          Last update: $Date: 2004/07/13 16:21:36 $

          PC: We need to be able to publish a list of changes in the
          status section

          DC: please let's not make that critical path

          PC: I'm overwhelmed that you believe that process, which seems
          risky and crude, is going to be acceptable. I've never seen it

          DC: What did you do with all the WDs before Last Call? Just did
          your best right.

          DC: I've put about as much energy as I can into the current
          comments list
          SW: I think we have to do something towards addressing Pat
          Hayes' comments and we have to do some work on authority and
          SW: I think the C/D problem still exists in some places
          DC: Anyone who's read a comment and thinks we should work on
          it, then we should work on it

          this is a good view:

          PC: So, between now and the f2f, TAG members should identify
          those comments that we should deal with. And as soon as
          possible after the f2f, we address those comments, and go to
          second last call.



          PC: The status would say that we think we've done a lot of work
          and the document should be reviewed a second time.
          DC: Yes. A D-o-C would be gravy, but it's not critical path for
          DC: I don't feel we've been rude to anybody.
          PC: I was hypothesising, but perhaps that's not the reaction
          that we'd get.
          PC: How long should the second last call?
          DC: A month, maybe five weeks, I dunno.

          given summer vacations, 6 weeks seems advisable

          PC: That seems to put an action on the TAG members to review
          the comments list

          it's about 5.6 screenfuls.

          CL: Points us to a feasible set based on hiding editorial and
          other issues.
          Our agenda next week will be to look at this list.

    1. [36]Last Call issues list ([37]sorted by section)
    2. [38]Annotated version of WebArch
    3. Archive of [39]public-webarch-comment
    4. [40]List of actions by TAG participant

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/concerning.html
     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/webarchWithIssues.html
     [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/
     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/actions_owner.html


   The TAG did not discuss issues below this line.

3. Status report on these findings

   See also [41]TAG findings
     * [42]abstractComponentRefs-37:
          + 30 Oct 2003 draft finding "[43]Abstract Component References"
     * [44]contentPresentation-26:
          + 30 June 2003 draft finding "[45]Separation of semantic and
            presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
            architecturally sound"
     * [46]metadataInURI-31
     * [47]siteData-36
          + "[48]There is no such thing as a Web site"

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
     [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
     [48] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/01/08/WebSite36

4. Other action items

     * Action DC 2003/11/15: Follow up on KeepPOSTRecords with Janet Daly
       on how to raise awareness of this point (which is in CUAP).
     * Action CL 2003/10/27: Draft XML mime type thingy with Murata-san


    Stuart Williams for Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2004/07/13 16:21:36 $
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 12:37:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:42 UTC