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

[Minutes] 29 Mar 2004 TAG teleconf (TLDs, Last Call Comments)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:38:49 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1080599929.3857.36.camel@seabright>

Minutes of the TAG's 29 March 2004 teleconference
are available as HTML [1] and as text below.

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/29-tag-summary.html

                  Minutes of 29 March 2004 TAG teleconference

1. Administrative (15min)

    1. Roll call. SW, TBL, DC, NW, RF, MJ, CL, IJ. Regrets: PC
    2. Resolved to accept the minutes of the [8]22 Mar teleconference
       Action IJ: Remove a side comment per SW's suggestion
    3. Accepted this [9]agenda
    4. Next meeting: 5 April. No meeting 12 April.

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/22-tag-summary.html
      [9] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/29-tag.html

  1.1 May ftf meeting

    1. See [10]meeting page
    2. Action IJ: Look for more advice from W3C Team on suggested hotels.

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2004/05/12-tag-mtg.html

2. Technical (75min)

   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 Top Level Domains used as filters (.xxx, .mobile, etc.)

   See [13]email from Danny Weitzner and email about [14]timing

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Mar/0027.html
     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Mar/0041.html

          .xxx and .mobile

          SW: Why did DJW bring this to us?
          DC: He suspects this is a bad idea and he thinks that if the
          TAG says it's a bad idea, that might have an impact.


    1. Economic arguments
    2. Architectural problems - putting info into a URL
    3. Social manageability

          DC: There's a comment period open right now (so some

          no - blocking .sex does not block all sex sites. finding them
          is no easier.

          DC: I think that the market will cause this to fail.

          .tv is actually a country code

          DC: E.g., only a few hundred ".tv" domains.

          More on the topic:

     [15] http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2461340

          but yes it is sold as a novelty for television

          Persistence decreased by arbitrary boundaries
          Device Independence reduced

          DC: Subdividing internet doesn't scale. If you have .mobile and
          .sex, what do you about sex for mobile devices?

          However there is no requirement to have only television stuff
          under .tv for example

          TBL: If you have .travel, then assume that you'll have a "dot"
          for every rubrique in the yellow pages. If you follow Kant, you
          end up dividing up the Web. You are imposing a centralized
          ontology. We could write a book on why that won't work. We
          could document the fact that the Web only worked because it
          DOES NOT have that. There are a number of systems pre-dating
          the Web that didn't work because people didn't agree with the
          ontologies of others. Some arch problems: persistence degrades.
          E.g., as a resource becomes more general, information will be
          moved out of a ".mobile" domain. Similarly, some information
          may be labeled adult and then later non-adult (e.g., "articles"
          in Playboy <wink>). There are philosophical arguments - who
          defines what is "mobile"? what is "porn"?: We've been through a
          huge discussion on this. PICS is the result of this discussion.
          Some people are happy to be labeled xxx, but others (larger
          group) that don't want to be labeled xxx but others want to
          label them as xxx - trying to manage this internationally is
          very difficult. E.g., dewey decimal system does not scale to
          the size of the Web.


     [16] http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/xxx.htm

          TBL: (1) persistence (2) social unmanageability (3) economic
          argument. People have paid a lot for domain real-estate. By
          creating a new TLD you are changing the zoning. You may have to
          buy hundreds of domain names all of a sudden. Thus, these
          proposals make it tough to maintain a trademark, and add cost
          to businesses as well as destabilize the DNS.

          Chris, you wanted to talk about .mobile, and about the cultural
          relativity of 'obscene'

          CL: I agree about the cultural relativity argument. There are
          lots of mobile companies pushing for this. Designed for profit.


          CL: Their proposal says that "The Web is for desktops." Which
          is very dangerous.

          ah; that's a comment I could endorse: "the .mobile proposal is

          DC: Yes, let's please send that comment.

          +1 to problems with "the web is for desktops" argument!

          mario, you wanted to note that also TLDs like .ag for public
          owned companies are not accepted that much by the marked.
          Additionally, people are not awaiting finding company related
          information at e.g. sap.ag the first place. Normally, these
          domains are just seconding a .com one.

          It flies in the face of device independence

          similar .assoc.fr for example
          and .tm.fr

          MJ: Market shows reluctance to accept special domains for first
          domain name in the market. Something like .ag is often used as
          a secondary domain; usually people use .com anyway.

          (I'm confused about how for-profit TLDs ever got on the map)

          exact same as [18]http://www.pepsi.fr/

     [17] http://www.pepsi.tm.fr/
     [18] http://www.pepsi.fr/


          although getting a raw .fr is very hard because you have to
          show you are a french company

          DC: I'd like CL to pursue the mobile question, whatever we do.
          E.g., CL writes three paras, the TAG endorses. I'd like CL to
          send this to the official comments list forthwith.


     [19] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt

          SW: At end of RFC3675, Donald recommends rating services (PICS)

          (wow... it's not easy at all to find the comment target email

     [20] http://forum.icann.org/mtg-cmts/stld-rfp-comments/general/index.html

          If i have an action, can it be crisply stated so that it can be
          closed when i have done it?
          draft to www-tag and send to (wherever) is ok as an action

          DC: "Public comment period begins 31 March" (ends 30 April)

          "A public comment period will begin 31 March 2004, 23:59 UTC
          and will last for one month. Comments will be posted in a
          web-based forum. Instructions will be published when the
          comment period opens." --

     [21] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement1-26mar04.htm


     [22] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19mar04.htm

          Action CL: Send a draft to www-tag explaining why the .mobile
          proposal is misinformed. If the TAG supports the proposal, send
          to ICANN on the official mailing list.

          CL: Should we follow up on other topics like .sex?
          TBL: I think it would be appropriate for the TAG to get into
          the technology and society area. For instance, to get into the
          arguments discussed when PICS was developed - e.g., centralized
          categories are socially unacceptable. This was the argument
          behind distributed whitelist/blacklists. Do we think it's out
          of scope for the TAG because it's too societal?
          DC: I think in scope. Just not inspired.
          TBL: Could we endorse something that DJW has written up.
          DC: Yes, though I would have to see it first.
          TBL: Can we ask DJW to address the filtering issue if we
          address the device-independence issue?
          SW: Yes, the TAG could, after review, endorse something that
          Danny has proposed.
          TBL: We could publish something small that points to text (or
          take it over).
          Action IJ: Talk to DJW about sending a proposal to the TAG
          (focusing on social issues) that the TAG could review and
          possibly endorse.

  2.2 Web Architecture Document Last Call

    1. [23]Last Call issues list ([24]sorted by section)
    2. [25]Annotated version of WebArch
    3. Archive of [26]public-webarch-comments
    4. [27]List of actions by TAG participant
    5. Additional actions
         1. Action IJ 2004/02/09: Incorporate editorial suggestions (see
            minutes of that meeting for details).

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

   Actions 2004/03/15 (due 25 March?) to review sections: No progress
     * TBL: I volunteer 2 hours starting at start of section 2
     * Roy: I volunteer to look at section 2
     * Norm: I volunteer for section 3
     * Stuart: I volunteer starting at section 2.3
     * Mario: I will look at section 4

    1. If people have sent comments per above actions, we will review
       those comments.
    2. We will look at comments with broad impact, such as those from
       [28]Pat Hayes
    3. We will continue our backwards walk through the document.

     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/1057.html

          [29]Pat Hayes comments
          [Meaning of key terms like identifier, resource,
          SW: I agree that we use "identify" in both sense. I was
          sympathetic to his comments.
          DC: This is the "myth of names and addresses" Get used to it.
          RF: If you look in the dictionary, the term has both
          definitions. We are using in the descriptive sense (in which
          both meanings are legit).

     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/1057.html


          NW: I was sympathetic to PH's arguments for many years then
          decided that's not the way the world is, so time to move on.

          (I haven't read his comments very closely, but based on
          Stuart's summary, I've heard similar arguments many^7 times)

          TBL: I think PH has hit on description of the semantic Web. By
          confusing his meanings C and D, we create the Web. That's the
          Web. That's what makes the Web the Web.
          RF: I agree with TBL on that.
          TBL: PH's first sentence includes the word "conflict". I think
          he's binding it to disjoint sets in his mind (in his own
          SW: Some assertions that we make in our good practice notes, he
          asserts, make good sense in one world, but are
          crazy/meaningless in the other world.

          Ian, you wanted to mention another issue about people/agents

          (people/agents: asked and answered, no? action timbl)

          I think most text on agents was written without considering
          that agent might include person

          IJ: My point is not to define "agent" in another way, only that
          people have commented that some GPNs don't make sense for all
          Issues manola6, parsia7, parsia14, manola17, manola23,

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#i18nwg16

          manola6 is asking about "user agent", not "agent"

          DC: I thought we said "Do so at your own risk."
          DC: I suggest changing to "do so at their own risk."
          TBL: What about "have no license to"
          DC: I think this makes sense for people and software; could use
          some editorial fixing.

     [31] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#uri-opacity
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#i18nwg16

          DC Proposal: Adjourn and work on actions during next 30

          [Discussions of action items]

          IJ: I expect to do editorial work, tracking.
          CL: [IJ missed]
          SW: I shall be reviewing section 2.3 issues
          NW: I shall be looking over section 3
          MJ: I will be helping CL with section 4. [And sending comments
          to public-webarch-comments]
          DC: I need to mull over PH comments, respond to Kopecky
          TBL: Follow up with David Booth
          RF: Section 2, finish draft of URI spec this week.


   The TAG did not discuss issues below this line.

  2.3 Review of open action items related to issues

   The TAG expects to review the list of [33]open actions by owner and to
   close any that are obvious to close. TAG participants are encouraged
   to review this list before the meeting, as well as other action items
   listed in this agenda.

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html

3. Status report on these findings

   See also [34]TAG findings
     * [35]abstractComponentRefs-37:
          + 30 Oct 2003 draft finding "[36]Abstract Component References"
     * [37]contentPresentation-26:
          + 30 June 2003 draft finding "[38]Separation of semantic and
            presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
            architecturally sound"
     * [39]metadataInURI-31
     * [40]siteData-36
          + "[41]There is no such thing as a Web site"

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
     [41] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/01/08/WebSite36

4. Other action items

     * Action PC/IJ: Proposed revised [42]TAG charter
     * Action RF 2003/10/08: Explain "identifies" in RFC 2396.
     * 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

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/07/19-tag


    Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2004/03/29 22:39:40 $

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

Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 17:41:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:41 UTC