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

[Minutes] 26th July TAG Telcon (LC Issues, Ottawa F2F preparation)

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:36:12 +0100
Message-ID: <8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC9693D@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>

Minutes of the TAG's 26th July 2004 teleconference are available as HTML [1] and as text below.

Stuart
--
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/26-tag-summary
=======================================================================

                  Minutes of 26 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/

1. Administrative

    1. Roll call. Present: Norm(chair), Dan (scribe), Chris, Paul.
       Regrets: TimBL, SW, IJ (possible regrets)
    2. Accept the [7]minutes of the 19 July teleconf?
    3. Accept this [8]agenda?
    4. Next meeting: 02 Aug. Regrets: NW. Possible regrets from IJ

      [7] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/19-tag-summary.html
      [8] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/26-tag.html

   [DanC]

          wondering about Roy
          review of 19July minutes postponed until they become available
          agenda seems OK
          next week: NW regrets. PC regrets.
          we don't expect SW is available 2 Aug
          RESOLVED: to cancel 2 Aug telcon. next meeting: ftf 9-11 Aug

  1.1 Meeting schedule

    1. Ottawa meeting update
         1. Action NW/PC 2004/06/14: Prepare ftf meeting agenda. See
            [9]proposed agenda.

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/08/09-11-tag.html

   [Norm]
          [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/08/09-11-tag.html

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/08/09-11-tag.html

   [DanC]
          --- Ottawa meeting update
          NW: toward having a good meeting in Basel, "Our goal for this
          face-to-face is to leave with a technically complete second
          Last Call working draft."
          ... aiming for publication [n]th of [month?] last call for
          about a month.

   [Norm]
          one month

   [DanC]
          ChrisL: have we started negotiating with peer groups about LC
          schedule?
          NW: no; haven't started
          PC notes I18N WG's recent inquiry about LC schedules
          ACTION NW: respond to I18N's inquiry about LC schedules, noting
          TAG's evolving plans
          PC: we're hoping to be able to edit the webarch doc during the
          meeting
          NW reviews daily schedule in
          [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/08/09-11-tag.html
          NW: we're considering inviting DaveO to participate by phone...
          PC: I was in contact with DaveO; he's considering it among
          various obligations
          ... monday might fit his schedule better
          NW: I'm open to monday if others are
          DC: likewise
          NW: I'll follow up.
          PC: I expect DaveO to reply to your earlier message
          PC asked about possibility of remote participation by IJ. DanC
          was thinking we encouraged him to focus on other things. thanks
          Paul and NW for preparing the agenda.

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/08/09-11-tag.html

  1.3 TAG Charter

   Pending further updates from Team/AB

2. Technical

   See also [12]open actions by owner and [13]open issues.

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

  2.1 Action Item List

    1. Action NW 2004/07/12: Write [14]XMLChunk-44 as a finding.
    2. Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close
       httpRange-14, text for document (need to reschedule httpRange-14
       when TBL available-single issue telcon? guest?)

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

   [DanC]
          Action NW: 2004/07/12: Write XMLChunk-44 as a finding.
          continues

          Action TBL/RF: 2004/05/13 Write up a summary position to close
          httpRange-14, text for document (need to reschedule
          httpRange-14 when TBL available-single issue telcon? guest?).
          CONTINUES.

  2.5 Web Architecture Document Last Call

  2.5.1 Last Call Issues

   Review [15]open issues starting with [16]nottingham1.

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=wg&closed=1&expert=1&editorial=1&clarification=1&stateAgreed=1&stateDeclined=1&stateSubsumed=1
     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=wg&closed=1&expert=1&editorial=1&clarification=1&stateAgreed=1&stateDeclined=1&stateSubsumed=1#nottingham1

   Chair proposes a two-pass review: first to determine if any of these
   issues have been overtaken by events. Then to determine which we need
   to resolve.

   If we get through the list, we‚ll go back and begin discussing the
   issues we selected as being on the critical path for a second Last
   Call draft.

   [Zakim]
          DanC, you wanted to speak to XML Schema action

   [DanC]
          DanC: I asked the XML Schema WG for telcon time; haven't heard
          back yet...
          PaulC: shall I call the chair?
          PaulC is excused to call the XML Schema WG chair for a few
          minutes...
          ----- Web Architecture Document Last Call
          NW: let's continue sorting into OBE, LC-critical, open
          -- [17]nottingham1: Second bullet doesn't make sense 1.2.1.
          Orthogonal Specifications
          NW: doesn't look OBE
          ... relevant text is still there, though moved

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#nottingham1

   [Chris]
          I agree thatperformance is the reason in practice (parsing all
          content to look for headers)

   [DanC]
          PaulC reached Ezell, who has now seen the request and intends
          to answer presently, after consulting some XML Schema WG
          members.
          NW: I'd like to be available Thu, but I see that I'm not. so I
          still prefer Fri.

   [Norm]
          [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=wg&
          closed=1&expert=1&editorial=1&clarification=1&stateAgreed=1&sta
          teDeclined=1&stateSubsumed=1
          [19]http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#orthogonal-specs
          perhaps

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=wg&closed=1&expert=1&editorial=1&clarification=1&stateAgreed=1&stateDeclined=1&stateSubsumed=1
     [19] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#orthogonal-specs

   [DanC]
          CL: suggest open. webarch makes a good point here.
          ... commentor says "it's not deployed because of performance";
          perhaps so, but it's also a problem w.r.t. architecture
          NW: so... nottingham1 open?
          NW: so... nottingham1 open.

   [Roy]
          oops, was trying to say it was not a bad idea -- there is a lot
          more history involved

   [DanC]
          roy, is that re nottingham1?

   [Roy]
          yes

   [Norm]
          You've fallen off the phone, will you be able to come back,
          Roy?

   [DanC]
          do you want the TAG to discuss nottingham1 further?

   [Roy]
          later

   [DanC]
          we can stick it in LC-critical for now if you like.
          i.e. schedule it for discussion later

   [Chris]
          we are saying that even if perfrmance was great, its still a
          level-breaking architecture problem

   [Roy]
          yes

   [DanC]
          ok, nottingham1 is LC-critical
          -- [20]klyne7 Use other schema than mailto as example
          ACTION NW: take klyne7 as editorial.
          -- [21]klyne9: Add stronger language on not permitting
          unregistered URI schemes
          CL: yeah... "is discouraged" isn't clear enough. "should not"
          ACTION NW: treat klyne9 as editorial
          PC: yeah, that text is still ther.
          s/ther/there/
          -- [22]klyne12: Proposal to drop paragraph on inconsistent frag
          ids
          [23]http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#fragid
          [24]http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#media-type-fragid
          NW: odd; greek letters are still in 3.3.1. CL: yes, see
          proposed text from my action. NW: good!
          NW: we've re-written this; it's now in 3.3.2
          (CL, you're welcome to write him individually)
          NW: klyne9 is OBE.

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne7
     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne9
     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne12
     [23] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#fragid
     [24] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#media-type-fragid

   [Chris]
          yeah okay

   [DanC]
          NW: klyne12 is OBE. [rather than klyne9]
          -- [25]klyne17: Worth pointing out value of RDF descriptions
          depends on URI persistence?
          CL: commentor not sure or something... NW: open, at least;
          we've re-written some.
          NW: klyne17 open.
          -- [26]klyne20: Say something about relationship between
          Hypertext Web and Semantic Web?
          NW: Ian 8Jun rev seems to deal with this. DC: yes, 4.6.
          NW: klyne20 OBE.
          -- [27]klyne21: Add statement about scalability concerns
          CL: fair point; hmm... I have an action
          NW: klyne21 is LC-critical, to review CL's action
          ACTION CL: Draft text to explain that there's a tradeoff in
          this situation. continues from 14 May 2004
          -- [28]klyne25 klyne25: Add reference to RFC3117, section 5.1?
          "On the Design of Application Protocols"
          [29]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3117.txt
          sec 5.1 Framing and Encoding
          DC: I'm interested to look at it
          NW: klyne25 LC-critical.
          ACTION DanC: report on study of RFC3117, section 5.1
          PC: note BXXP is in the same design space as SOAP... CL: yes,
          there are probably lots of things written about "Why we did X
          with XML".

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne17
     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne20
     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne21
     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne25
     [29] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3117.txt

   [Chris]
          The pain of recreating this social infrastructure
          far outweighs any benefits of devising a new representation.
          So, if
          the "make" option is too expensive, is there something else we
          can
          "buy" besides XML? Well, there's ASN.1/BER (just kidding).

   [DanC]
          -- [30]manola17: "Agent" that includes "people" source of
          confusion
          DC: I think this is OBE
          NW: manola17 is OBE.
          -- [31]manola27: Provide examples of mistaken attempts to
          restrict URI usage
          CL: yes, fair point... e.g. "we assume HTTP" in a format spec
          would be bad.
          NW: manola27 is LC-critical
          ACTION CL: draft example ala manola27: Provide examples of
          mistaken attempts to restrict URI usage
          -- [32]i18nwg5: Discussion of content-type header hint
          PC: looks like nottingham1
          DC/scribe: it's LC-critical.
          NW: i18nwg5 is LC-critical, like nottingham1
          -- [33]i18nwg8
          PC: looks worth discussion. CL: yup
          RF: Ian's dealt with this, yes?
          PC: yes, but let's look again.
          NW: yes, let's look again
          NW: i18nwg8 is LC-critical
          -- [34]i18nwg16: Good practice on URI opacity impossible to
          follow for humans.

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#manola17
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#manola27
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#i18nwg5
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#i18nwg8
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#i18nwg16

   [Norm]
          zakim, who's talking?

   [Zakim]
          Norm, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the
          following: Norm (9%), Roy (9%)

   [DanC]
          NW: we've changed to "SHOULD NOT"... OBE?
          DC: either way...
          NW: i18nwg16 is OBE
          -- [35]i18nwg19: text/foo+xml considered useless?
          CL notes recent Internet Draft relevant to this.
          ... deprecates this.

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#i18nwg19

   [Chris]
          rfc3023 revision:
          [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0016.ht
          ml

     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0016.html

   [DanC]
          DC: worth reflecting in webarch? NW: I think we do already.
          OBE.
          NW: i18nwg19 is OBE

   [Chris]
          [37]http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murata-kohn-lille
          y-xml-00.txt
          Major differences from [RFC3023] are deprecation of text/xml
          and
          text/xml-external-parsed-entity, the addition of XPointer and
          XML
          Base as fragment identifiers and base URIs, respectively.

     [37] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-00.txt

   [DanC]
          -- [38]i18nwg20
          NW: hmm... same slug as 19...
          CL: I can see how readers could come to wrong conclusions...
          ACTION CL: propose text based on i18nwg20
          NW: i18nwg20 is LC-critical
          -- [39]rosenberg3: Reuse appropriate URI schemes (and
          protocols)
          "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate"
          [40]http://rfc.net/rfc3205.html
          NW: we have an issue on that...

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#i18nwg20
     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#rosenberg3
     [40] http://rfc.net/rfc3205.html

   [Roy]
          /me I'll check the status of 3205 at next week's IETF

   [Chris]
          [41]http://rfc.net/rfc3205.html
          Says its a BCP

     [41] http://rfc.net/rfc3205.html

   [DanC]
          DC: ah; IJ did this.
          NW: rosenberg3 is OBE

   [Chris]
          [42]http://rfc.net/rfc3688.html

     [42] http://rfc.net/rfc3688.html

   [DanC]
          ACTION NW: incorporate reference to RFC 3688 per rosenberg
          NW: and perhaps bump httpSubstrate up in priority for ftf
          discussion

   [Chris]
          If the registrant wishes to
          have a URI assigned, then a URN of the form
          urn:ietf:params:xml:<class>:<id>
          will be assigned where <class> is the type of the document
          being
          registered (see below). <id> is a unique id generated by the
          IANA
          based on any means the IANA deems necessary to maintain
          uniqueness
          and persistence.

   [DanC]
          -- [43]rosenberg5: Proposed reference to IANA registry for
          namespaces and RFC 3688
          NW: rosenberg5 is LC-critical. [cf action above]
          --------- TRIAGE DONE! -------------
          -- [44]schema12: [1] [1] Good practice: Available
          representation. Too preferential to dereferencable URIs
          DC: note telcon negotiations in progress.
          ADJOURN.

     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#rosenberg5
     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema12
      [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
      [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/

   [Zakim]
          TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
          Attendees were Norm, DanC, Chris, [Microsoft], PaulCotton, Roy

   [DanC]
          RRSAgent, make logs world-access
          Chair: NormW
          Scribe: DanC
          Agenda: [45]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/26-tag.html
          Meeting: TAG
          Regrets: IJ, SW, TimBL
          RRSAgent, pointer?

     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/26-tag.html

   [RRSAgent]

   See [46]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T20-15-05

     [46] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T20-15-05

   [RRSAgent]
          I see 8 open action items:
          ACTION: NW to respond to I18N's inquiry about LC schedules,
          noting TAG's evolving plans [$1\47]
          recorded in
          [47]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-16-01
          ACTION: NW to take klyne7 as editorial. [$1\47]
          recorded in
          [48]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-35-25
          ACTION: NW to treat klyne9 as editorial [$1\47]
          recorded in
          [49]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-37-03
          ACTION: CL to Draft text to explain that there's a tradeoff in
          this situation. continues from 14 May 2004 [$1\47]
          recorded in
          [50]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-45-02
          ACTION: DanC to report on study of RFC3117, section 5.1 [$1\47]
          recorded in
          [51]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-47-32
          ACTION: CL to draft example ala manola27: Provide examples of
          mistaken attempts to restrict URI usage [$1\47]
          recorded in
          [52]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-50-25
          ACTION: CL to propose text based on i18nwg20 [$1\47]
          recorded in
          [53]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-58-58
          ACTION: NW to incorporate reference to RFC 3688 per rosenberg
          [$1\47]
          recorded in
          [54]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T20-03-44

     [47] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-16-01
     [48] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-35-25
     [49] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-37-03
     [50] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-45-02
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-47-32
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-50-25
     [53] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-58-58
     [54] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T20-03-44

     _________________________________________________________________

  2.5.2 Reviews

   See the 8 [55]June 2004 Editor's Draft.
     * Actions from 2004/06/14:
       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 [56]Done[partial]
       [57]PDF, [58]HTML)
       [Will add references to any other completed reviews submitted for
       discussion]

     [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040608/
     [56] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jun/0028.html
     [57] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/att-0037/webarch-ann-skw.pdf
     [58] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/att-0037/webarch-ann-skw-f.html

   Resources:
    1. [59]Last Call issues list ([60]sorted by section)
    2. [61]Annotated version of WebArch
    3. Archive of [62]public-webarch-comment
    4. [63]List of actions by TAG participant

     [59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html
     [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/concerning.html
     [61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/webarchWithIssues.html
     [62] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/
     [63] 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 [64]TAG findings
     * [65]abstractComponentRefs-37:
          + 30 Oct 2003 draft finding "[66]Abstract Component References"
     * [67]contentPresentation-26:
          + 30 June 2003 draft finding "[68]Separation of semantic and
            presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
            architecturally sound"
     * [69]metadataInURI-31
     * [70]siteData-36
          + "[71]There is no such thing as a Web site"

     [64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
     [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [66] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
     [67] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [68] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
     [69] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [70] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
     [71] 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

     _________________________________________________________________


    Norman Walsh for Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2004/09/01 12:19:32 $
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2004 15:36:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:28 GMT