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

[Minutes] 14 June 2004 TAG teleconf (IRIs)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:53:51 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1087494831.4577.33.camel@seabright>
Hello,

Minutes of the TAG's 14 June 2004 teleconference are
available as HTML [1] and as text below.

  _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/06/14-tag-summary.html

====================================================

                  Minutes of 14 June 2004 TAG teleconference

In Memoriam

   Resolved: The TAG regrets the tragic loss of Mario Jeckle.

1. Administrative

    1. Roll call: DC, NW, CL, PC, RF, SW (Scribe). Regrets: TBL, IJ
    2. Resolved to accept the [8]minutes of the 7 June teleconf?
    3. Accepted this [9]agenda
    4. Next meeting 21 June?
    5. Resolved upcoming schedule:
          + 21 Jun: cancelled
          + 28 Jun: teleconf (next meeting)
          + 5 Jul: cancelled
          + 12 July: teleconf
    6. Action TBL 2004/05/12: Talk to TB and DO about editor role.
    7. NW to Chair during SW absence 19 and 26 July.

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2004/06/07-tag-summary.html
      [9] http://www.w3.org/2004/06/14-tag.html

  1.1 Meeting schedule

   Action TAG 2004/06/07: Send summer regrets to TAG list.
    1. AC meeting [10]rescheduled for 2-3 December. Does this affect
       whether to hold TAG ftf meeting in November?
    2. Ottawa meeting update?
       Action NW/PC: Prepare ftf meeting agenda.
    3. 5-7 October Basel meeting update?

     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2004AprJun/0050.html

  1.3 TAG Charter

   Action IJ 2004/06/07: Report back on next AB meeting to discuss TAG
   charter and relation to patent policy.

   [No change].

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

   Completed action items:
    1. Resolved completed action IJ 2004/05/24/: Announce the closure of
       issue URIEquivalence-15. See [13]proposal to drop this action.
    2. [14]Request from Chris to confirm that three action items
       completed. Resolved done or moot.

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004May/0070.html
     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jun/0010.html

  2.1 xml11Names-46

    1. Resolved completed action NW 2004/06/07: Write up [15]XML 1.1
       Question for the TAG. If there are no objections to formulation,
       forward to the XML CG on behalf of TAG. ([16]Proposed)
    2. Resolved to forward NW's summary to XML CG. Norm and Paul have
       already discussed with XML CG who are willing to pick this up

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004May/0039.html
     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jun/0004.html

  2.2 httpRange-14 status

   Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close
   httpRange-14, text for document.

   [No change].

  2.3 IRI draft status in IETF

   The IRI spec has moved on since the TAG's [17]22 March 2004
   discussion. Martin Duerst has sumbitted the [18]08 draft to the IESG
   for approval. The concerns expressed in [a] centred around lack of
   maturity of the spec. and lack of delployment and usage experience.

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/22-tag-summary.html
     [18] http://www.w3.org/mid/4.2.0.58.J.20040601174624.06b549f8@localhost

   [skw-scribe]

          DC: Reminds TAG wrt request to remove IRI section 7 from
          Charmod Fundementals. Introduces note from i18n seeking
          clarification.
          RF: The IRI specification is not done yet.
          CL: I accept this in theory, but in practice it becomes
          vanishingly less likely. I find their argument reasonably
          well-made but not (yet?) convincing.
          DC: Recap's on TAG request to split Charmod.
          RF: As long as i18n are willing to accept the dependency on IRI
          wrt Charmod progress to REC.... wouldn't recommend it, but they
          could do that. IRI isn't done until the IESG say that it is.
          I'd prefer that they split it out.
          CL: I18N are arguing that testing should be addressed in IRI
          spec rather than Charmod.
          DC: Looks very much like a normative reference.

   [Zakim]
          DanC, you wanted to note Roy seems to be answering one of the
          I18N WG's questions "2. Is the concern about the draft status
          of the IRI document or about the maturity of IRIs as a
          technology?"

   [skw-scribe]
          DC: Question from i18n: are we concern about maturity of spec.
          or the IRI technology.
          RF: Explains that IESG will be very concerned about anything
          that affects/impacts DNS. Concerns over where Punycode gets
          done. Both URI and IRI are consistent, BUT both are I-Ds and
          may both encounter pushback from IESG.
          CL: There is deployment experience in Korea?
          RF: Some implementations in browsers...
          CL: Was talking about DNS more generally.?
          RF: It's deployed elsewhere too... Poland...

   [Zakim]
          DanC, you wanted to voice an I18N WG question about tests

   [skw-scribe]
          PC: Does the note from i18n require a response.?
          DC: Yes. Addressing the question what should we test... quoting
          "IE, Opera, Safari have been doing the right thing...."

   [Chris]
          opera and safari and mozilla do the utf-8 to punycode
          conversion on dereference

   [skw-scribe]
          DC: Testing all the specs that reference the IRI spec is not,
          should not be the job of i18n.
          CL: Can't really just say that these things are doing the right
          thing. Need test cases that can be separately verified.
          SW: Asks whether IRI spec contains test case cf test cases as
          in URI spec.
          CL: That would be hard in an ascii based doc.

   [Zakim]
          DanC, you wanted to follow up on Roy's point about accepting a
          normative reference to the IRI spec

   [skw-scribe]
          CL: I would like them to exist in the form that they are to be
          used.
          SW: Clarifies interest is in the existence of such test,
          comparible with tests in URI spec.
          DC/CL: Could request clarification of normative nature of
          reference to IRI spec.
          NW: 3 options

         1. something about test assertions.
         2. point out that the reference appears to be normative but
            isn't
         3. ask them to acknowledge that they understand that the IRI
            spec isn't far enough along to normatively reference and ask
            what they propose to do about that

   [DanC]
          1: in response to their question of what to test, suggest that
          "browsers do the right thing" is worth testing

   [skw-scribe]
          PC: Question... isn't there a problem wrt to i18n declaiming
          responsibility for testing IRI implementation?
          CL: ...yes I agree.

   [DanC]
          (yes, that "not the job of the I18N WG" comment gave me pause)

   [skw-scribe]
          CL: reiterates previous aquisence was on the basis of the need
          for testing.

   [Norm]
          4: TAG believes that I18N within the W3C needs to get clear
          understanding with other working groups about who holds the
          responsiblity for testing I18N features in the other specs

   [DanC]
          I can't sign up to 4: yet

   [skw-scribe]
          DC: I think that their position is reasonable - that that WG
          bears responsibilty for own testing of i18n features.
          PC: Possibly need a test-suite that sweeps across multiple
          specs.

   [Chris]
          the i18n wg could help ensure that individual wgs do in fact
          test things like use of non-english tet, etc (not just in iris)

   [skw-scribe]
          DC: You've identified a problem, but it may not be the most
          constructive thing to address that at i18n.
          NW: Are we at point of dimishing returns wrt this immediate
          discussion.

   [Chris]
          ACTION CL: draft text and send to TAG for review

  2.4 Web Architecture Document Last Call

   See the 8 [19]June 2004 Editor's Draft. Assign reviewers to specific
   sections?
     * Action NW 2004/05/14: Propose text on tradeoffs for section 4.2.2.
     * Action CL 2004/05/14: Rewrite story at beginning of 3.3.1.
       Consider deleting para that follows last sentence third para after
       story in 3.3.1. "Note also that since dereferencing a URI (e.g.,
       using HTTP) does not involve sending a fragment identifier to a
       server or other agent, certain access methods (e.g., HTTP PUT,
       POST, and DELETE) cannot be used to interact with secondary
       resources."
     * Completd Action IJ: Remove the middle bullet from 2.3 (done in 8
       June draft).
     * Action TBL 2004/06/08: For issue hawke7, ask Sandro for
       clarification on whether second URI should have "#". Done: Sandro
       said that the hashes were not the point, but that the point was
       that in the context of dereferencing, it does matter which URI you
       use. Note: IJ has removed the paragraph in the 8 June draft.

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040608/

   Actions:
    1. DC to review section 2 of 8 June draft.
    2. PC to review sections 1, 5, and 6 of 8 June draft.
    3. CL to review section 4 of 8 June draft.
    4. SW, NW to review entire 8 June draft.

   Resources:
    1. [20]Last Call issues list ([21]sorted by section)
    2. [22]Annotated version of WebArch
    3. Archive of [23]public-webarch-comments
    4. [24]List of actions by TAG participant

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html
     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/concerning.html
     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/webarchWithIssues.html
     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/
     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/actions_owner.html

     _________________________________________________________________

   The TAG does not expect to discuss issues below this line.

3. Status report on these findings

   See also [25]TAG findings
     * [26]abstractComponentRefs-37:
          + 30 Oct 2003 draft finding "[27]Abstract Component References"
     * [28]contentPresentation-26:
          + 30 June 2003 draft finding "[29]Separation of semantic and
            presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
            architecturally sound"
     * [30]metadataInURI-31
     * [31]siteData-36
          + "[32]There is no such thing as a Web site"

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
     [32] 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

     _________________________________________________________________


    Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2004/06/17 12:27:19 $

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

Received on Thursday, 17 June 2004 13:53:52 GMT

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