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

[Minutes] 3 May 2004 TAG teleconf (TLDs, Arch Doc)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 18:15:01 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1083622501.1639.56.camel@seabright>
Hello, 

Minutes of the TAG's 3 May 2004 teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.

 _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/05/03-tag-summary.html

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

   
                   Minutes of 3 May 2004 TAG teleconference

   Administrative (30min)

    1. Roll call: TBL (Chair), DC, PC, RF, MJ, CL, IJ. Regrets: SW, NW.
    2. Accepted the minutes of the [7]26 Apr teleconference with
       [8]amendments from CL.
    3. Accepted this [9]agenda?
    4. Next meeting: 12-14 May ftf meeting. Regrets: SW. Chair: NW.

      [7] http://www.w3.org/2004/04/26-tag-summary.html
      [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004May/0003.html
      [9] http://www.w3.org/2004/05/03-tag.html

  1.1 May TAG ftf meeting in Boston

    1. See [10]meeting page
    2. Completed action NW and IJ 2004/04/19: Work on agenda for ftf
       meeting. ([11]Done)
    3. PC: Regrets for first day of ftf meeting.
    4. TAG anticipates closing the meeting on Friday between 4 and 5:30
       pm due to travel schedules.

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2004/05/12-tag-mtg.html
     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Apr/0060.html

  1.2 May AC meeting in New York

    1. [12]Registration[13], Agenda
    2. Action DC 2004/04/26: Prepare TAG presentation for AC meeting.
       DC: Please continue.
       Action PC, CL 2004/05/03: Review presentation materials when DC
       makes them available.

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34257/NY04/
     [13] http://www.w3.org/2004/05/16-AC-agenda.html

2. Technical (60min)

   See also [14]open actions by owner and [15]open issues.

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

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

    1. Resolved to drop action CL 2004/03/29: 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
       ([16]Proposed)
    2. Resolved to drop action IJ 2004/03/29: Talk to DJW about sending a
       proposal to the TAG (focusing on social issues) that the TAG could
       review and possibly endorse. Progress; I chatted with DJW; haven't
       had further discussion.

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Apr/0057.html

   [IanJ] CL: Some news - deadline for comments extended by 2 weeks.

   [timbl] Chris: The dxedalien for commnts has been extended by 14 days.

   [Chris] ICANN has extended its Public Comment period for all of the
   new sTLD applications until 23.59 UTC 14 May. Interested parties are
   further encouraged to submit comments. ICANN will launch the
   independent evaluation process as scheduled, and proceed with the sTLD
   application timetable as originally published.

   [Chris] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30apr04.htm

   [timbl] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TLD

   * DanC_ is pretty sure timbl did not give a pointer to the TAG
   previously

   [Chris] So we can give a comment as TAG is we want to

   [IanJ] TBL: I'm happy to take comments from people as individuals;
   this is personal opinion. This is not a W3C document.

   [Chris] tim is happy for his document, or icann is happy to take
   comments?

   [IanJ] TBL: Half of this is generic, half is more specific to .mobi

   [IanJ] PC: Would these arguments have been used against .name?

   [IanJ] TBL: Some of them apply to .name as well, though a bit weaker
   (since a different namespace based on personal names) The DNS tree
   doesn't work at that level; the top-level is essentially flat.

   [IanJ] PC: Does this essay talk about what resources .mobi will
   actually relate to? The .mobi domain is more aimed at people's mobile
   cell phone and roaming devices than at static content (or dynamic)
   served for mobile users. For instance, I'd have an address
   paulcotton.name but also paulcotton.mobi and that would be a web
   server running on my mobile device.

   [Chris] hmm interesting

   [IanJ] TBL: Looking at the proposal, I couldn't really read that.

   [DanC_] gee... the prices I've seen for foo.mobi suggest it's not for
   an individual's phone web server

   [Chris] servers on individual devices is a *good* thing. Yes the
   registrations is higher than other domains

   [IanJ] TBL: People on the .mobi forum have addressed that issue as
   well. I also address both issues to a certain extent (foo.mobi as
   serving content for mobile devices, foo.mobi as mobile device
   address).

   [IanJ] PC: I think the proposal from the .mobil proposers doesn't
   state clearly their intention

   * DanC_ smells people trying to make money and trying not to be
   accountable for their actions

   [IanJ] TBL: Any chance the TAG can get a consensus message together?

   [IanJ] PC: It's likely that if the TAG has to take a position on this
   I'll have to recuse myself. PC: It may be useful for us to come up
   with a position by the end of the review period.

   * IanJ see also: http://www.w3.org/2004/03/28-tld

   [IanJ] TBL: I think CL's email probably incorporated a number of
   points i"ve made. Should we try to put together a finding (possibly
   with abstensions from some TAG participants)?

   [IanJ] CL: I'd be quite happy to have TBL's essay endorsed. If there
   are too many people abstaining, might not be worth it.

   [IanJ] DC: I have a mild feeling that this should not pre-empt our
   work. I think that even if we did nothing, I can't believe that this
   would go through.

   [IanJ] TBL: I don't hear a lot of energy for getting a group statement
   on this.

   * DanC_ is curious what Roy thinks

   [IanJ] MJ: I'm happy to contribute to a document to be published by
   the TAG. * DanC_ didn't hear MJ offering to "write it up"

   [IanJ] TBL: If MJ is prepared to write something up, I'd suggest that
   we review /DesignIssues/TLD for a sanity check.

   * DanC_ hears an anybody/somebody/nobody request

   [IanJ] DC: I'd prefer that TBL send /DesignIssues/TLD to www-tag.

   [IanJ] TBL: Are we asking the TAG to review it?

   [IanJ] [E.g., answer before ftf meeting by email whether to endorse
   it]

   [IanJ] DC: Tradition here is to get two reviewers.

   [IanJ] TBL: Who wishes to review?

   [IanJ] PC: I will read it.

   [IanJ] CL: I volunteer to read it.

   [IanJ] Action CL, PC: Read TBL's TLD essay, send comments to www-tag.

   [IanJ] Action TBL: Send pointer to essay to www-tag.

  2.3 Web Architecture Document Last Call Resources:

    1. [17]Last Call issues list ([18]sorted by section)
    2. [19]Annotated version of WebArch
    3. Archive of [20]public-webarch-comments
    4. [21]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).

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

   Actions 2004/03/15 (due 25 March?) to review sections:
     * Norm: I volunteer for section 3 ([22]Proposed)
     * TBL: I volunteer 2 hours starting at start of section 2
     * Roy: I volunteer to look at section 2
     * Stuart: I volunteer starting at section 2.3
     * Mario: I will look at section 4

     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Apr/0011.html

    Issue Klyne12

   [IanJ] [23]klyne12: Proposal to drop paragraph on inconsistent frag
   ids

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne12

   [IanJ] CL: It's not untestable.

   [IanJ] From the reviewer: "This seems a rather odd statement to make
   (specifically: "it is considered an error ...", because there is no
   specific way to determine if the would-be erroneous condition actually
   arises. Suggest: drop this paragraph; the intent is clear enough from
   the following good practice point."

   [IanJ] DC: Error condition is that the publisher publishes two
   representations, using same fragid to mean two different things. Arch
   doc says "It's considered an error." Please say something like the
   representation provider is at fault in this case. NW's proposal was to
   keep the paragraph and make clearer who is responsible. I agree with
   NW and for the editor to salt to taste. I think it's worth making the
   point we were trying to make.

   [IanJ] CL: I'd like some sort of action (i.e., text and response to
   reviewer). So yes to explain better and keep para.

   [IanJ] RF: We have text for that in RFC2396 (IJ can take text from
   that revision).

   [IanJ] IJ: I'm happy to steal from child-of-RFC2396

   [Chris] cool, can we reuse?

   [Roy] http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html#fragment

   [IanJ] Resolved to accept that reviewer's point that it could be
   improved, but decline to drop it.

   * Chris chuckles at 'disposal of comments'

   [Roy] para after ABNF for fragment

   [IanJ] Action IJ: Improve text regarding responsibility for
   inconsistent frag id semantics (looking at new RFC2396 text).

    Issue schema4

   [IanJ] [24]issue schema4: 3.3 Good practice: Fragment Identifier
   Consistency]

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema4

   [IanJ] DC: Reviewer wants to know more about how the inconsistency is
   "detected".

   [IanJ] CL: Same comment as before: how do you know when inconsistent?

   [IanJ] DC: Bad news is ---- you don't ---- so don't create this error
   condition.

   [IanJ] IJ: How do you know that you're doing it?

   [IanJ] TBL: How do you know you're doing anything....

   [IanJ] DC: We are not saying "it always has to work" we are saying "if
   it usually works; that's good. If it usually doesn't; that's useless."

   [Chris] i am getting awful garbling from my vonage phone

   [IanJ] TBL: I think we should say we're not using in the sense of
   formal logic.

   [DanC_] "In general, content negotiation (like server-side browser
   sniffing) does not seem to us to be an obviously and universally good
   thing". translation: conneg sucks.

   [IanJ] DC: Methinks she doth protest too much... Do they complain
   about the word ambiguous? They also want clarity on the nature of
   resource...

   [DanC_] IJ: meanwhile, I'm demoting/removing "the owner of a resource"
   in the version scheduled for 5May... Nature of resource may become
   less and less a pertinent question.

   [IanJ] DC: I don't see a straightforward way to dispatch with schema4
   here. Whatever we used to explain ambiguity also applied to
   consistency....

   [Roy] This has also been addressed by rfc2396bis, same section.

   [IanJ] CL: I think their point here is that conneg can lead to
   inconsistency and therefore we should not be endorsing it.

   [IanJ] TBL: To me, behind this, there is an unclosed issue. My first
   take on this is to say - suppose you have the same document in XHTML
   and SVG. Underlying issue is semantic web cross-links and hypertext
   web cross links; don't mix them via coneg.

   [DanC_] hmm... perhaps we haven't said what's good about conneg.

   [Chris] we have not, agreed

   [IanJ] TBL: N3 equivalence with RDF/XML.

   [timbl] *** TBL to clarify

   [timbl] for minutes

   [Roy] The second and third paragraphs of
   [http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html#fragment] is a
   different wording of the same practice note that avoids requiring that
   representations exist.

   * DanC_ encourages RF to speak

   [IanJ] RF: RFC2396 current draft paragraphs address comments we've
   received in URI forum and about www-tag. What the schema WG wants is
   something that doesn't require representations to exist.

   [IanJ] DC: Worth a try. We can update the text and see if they like it
   better.

   [IanJ] TBL notes our proximity to httpRange-14

   [IanJ] RF: We run into that problem regardless of the URI scheme.
   Given that it's instructions to the people responsible for creating
   mappings between names and mappings, it's ok if those instructions are
   only verifiable by humans.

   [IanJ] TBL: We should give some guidance.

   [IanJ] DC: I don't feel a big obligation to do much more than we did
   on 9 Dec. [Chris] so we have a case where the primary resource
   representations are 'equivalent' but the secondary resources are not
   'equivalent'. I propose that IJ try to paste RFC2396 text in and ask
   the Schema WG to review.

   [IanJ] Action IJ: paste RFC2396 text in and ask the Schema WG to
   review.

    Issue stickler8

   [IanJ] [25]issue stickler8: Section 3.3.1, last para, last sentence:
   Nature of secondary resource not known through URI

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler8

   [Roy] 3.3.1 "Per [URI], in order to know the authoritative
   interpretation of a fragment identifier, one must dereference the URI
   containing the fragment identifier." What triggered the question has
   to do with authoritative interpretation of a frag id.

   [IanJ] TBL: If you do access the resource and get respresentation
   back, then content type of the representation determines semantics of
   the frag id.

   [IanJ] RF: Patrick is saying that even if you access a resource, you
   can't determine the authoritative representation of it.

   [IanJ] Postponed

    Issue stickler9

   [26]issue stickler9: Good practice note on URIs without fragids?

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler9

   Question: are the methods PUT, POST or DELETE meaningful for URI
   references with fragment identifiers, in terms of interacting with the
   state of the secondary resources denoted?

   [DanC_] (ah... the "maximize utility..." text isn't from webarch.
   whew.)

   [IanJ] Proposal: Say "no" as answer to stickler 9.

   [IanJ] TBL: I would say that it's an error to do a PUT/POST/DELETE
   using URI with frag id.

   [DanC_] (when somebody asks about methods PUT and POST, has one
   already limited the scope to http URIs? we reckon that one can GET an
   ftp URI, yes? you can PUT to ftp too... hmm...)

   [IanJ] TBL: Secondary resources are on a completely different level;
   their properties are determined by the content type of
   representations.

   [DanC_] (serious crosstalk today!)

   [IanJ] TBL: Secondary resources are things referred to using a
   language in which the primary resource is written. HTTP only gives
   access to the primary resource. [Roy] I think it is a good principle
   that one should use the most specific URI available for the resource
   that one intends to identify. User agents are capable of controlling
   interactions beyond that.

   [IanJ] Action IJ: Respond to reviewer's comment that HTTP
   PUT/POST/DELETE do not work with URIs with fragment identifiers since
   HTTP does not give access to the secondary resource.

     _________________________________________________________________

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

  2.2 Marking Operations Safe in WSDL

    1. Action SW 2004/04/26: Thank the WSDL WG for what they've done so
       far, ask them to explain a bit about what can go wrong, encourage
       them to put it in the test suite.

3. Status report on these findings

   See also [27]TAG findings
     * [28]abstractComponentRefs-37:
          + 30 Oct 2003 draft finding "[29]Abstract Component References"
     * [30]contentPresentation-26:
          + 30 June 2003 draft finding "[31]Separation of semantic and
            presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
            architecturally sound"
     * [32]metadataInURI-31
     * [33]siteData-36
          + "[34]There is no such thing as a Web site"

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
     [34] 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: 2004/05/03 22:11:57 $

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

Received on Monday, 3 May 2004 18:18:18 UTC

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