- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:59:45 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1076540385.1247.100.camel@seabright>
Hello,
Minutes of the TAG's 9 February video conference are
available as HTML [1] and as text below.
_ Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/09-tag-summary
========================================================
Minutes of 9 February 2004 TAG Videoconference
1. Administrative
1. Roll call: SW in Bristol; TBL, DC, IJ in Cambridge; DC, PC, RF in
Redmond. NW and MJ by phone. CL arrived at the end of the meeting
in Bristol. Regrets: TB
The TAG thanks Microsoft for hosting this videoconference!.
2. Resolved to accept minutes of the [8]2 Feb teleconf
3. Accepted this [9]agenda
4. Proposed next meeting: 23 Feb 2004. IJ at risk.
5. Reminder: No meeting 16 Feb.
[8] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/02-tag-summary.html
[9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/02/09-tag.html
1.1 Technical Plenary
1. TAG Participation at Tech Plenary ([10]agenda)
+ Session 2: Architecture of the World Wide Web and Hot TAG
Topics
1. Action DC: Motivate discussion for namespaceDocument-8
2. Action SW: Find a volunteer to discuss identifiers at
Tech Plenary
3. The TAG also discussed how to handle extensibility and
versioning at the Tech Plenary
+ Session 4: Adventures with Mixed Markup Language Documents
[Some TAG participants]
2. [11]TAG 2 Mar 2004 ftf meetingl
+ [12]Liaison scheduling plan. The TAG discussed how best to
liaise on the topic of RDF in HTML.
+ Handling LC comments
[10] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/TechPlenAgenda.html
[11] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/02-tag-mtg.html
[12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/02/TAG-Liasons.html
1.2 TAG meeting schedule in 2004
1. Resolved: The TAG will meet face-to-face in Boston 12-14 May.
2. Action PC 2004/02/09: Propose August ftf meeting dates.
2. Technical
See also [13]open actions by owner and [14]open issues.
[13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1
2.1 Review of issues to close by end of LC
2.1.1 qnameAsId-18 andrdfmsQnameURIMapping-6
Issues [15]qnameAsId-18 and [16]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6. Jan 2004 draft
finding "[17]Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in Content"
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#qnameAsId-18
[16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
[17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids-2004-01-14
Action DO: Point WSDL WG to resolution of issue 6.
[Ian-MIT]
DC: Best thing is for WSDL WG to send in an LC comment.
DO: There are three people who are reviewing it.
[DanC_jam]
yeah, DO's action is done to my satisfaction
[Ian-MIT]
Resolved: DO's action is completed.
[paulc]
No objection to the withdrawal.
This closes issue 6.
Action DC, TB, TBL: Review[18]14 Jan draft of Qname Finding
[18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids-2004-01-14.html
[Ian-MIT]
DC: Apologies, not done.
TBL: I read it. The gist is right; could be written in a less
confusing fashion. Starts off saying there's no std way of
defining what prefix the ns maps to. But then goes on to talk
about the "normal way" of doing it. So there is really one way
of doing it (for elements, attributes).
NW: XPointer uses a completely different mechanism.
TBL: There is an original way; xpointer has deviated from that
way. Please mark my action item as completed.
[Norm]
Yes, xpointer has deviated, so there is no longer one way.
[paulc]
Unclear to me if TBL wants changes.
[timbl]
My conclusion is that really that is a mess. The finding does
explain that. The fact that there is a finding doesn't mean the
architecture is clean.
[Ian-MIT]
IJ: It is my understanding that to close this issue, we need to
approve the finding.
DC: Schema WG seems relevant here. I wouldn't consider our LC
successful if we haven't heard from the Schema WG. I want to
approve the finding AND hear from the other groups.
[timbl]
Put another way, Norm, my suggestion is that the document
should treat the way the elements and attribute prefixes are
bound as being special, as it was the original one defined in
the NS spec which introduced the colon in the first place. It
isn't true to say that there is not one algorithm. It is true
to say that various specs have defined their own. The subtlety
is that folks want to throw away namespace bindings that they
don't "know" they need.
The TAG returned to this topic later in the meeting; those minutes
appended here for readability.
[timbl]
On Qname finding: I think NW should make more of the algorithm
that one uses to determine the binding when looking at elems
and attributes.
[Ian-MIT]
NW: Can TBL say more of what he's looking for?
[DanC_jam]
I find "Specifications that use QNames to represent {URI,
local-name} pairs MUST describe the algorithm that is used to
map between them." which is responsive to my comments.
[timbl]
Section 4.2 says: "Using a QName as a shortcut for a {URI,
local-name} pair is often convenient, but it carries a price.
There is no single, accepted way to convert QNames into {URI,
local-name} pairs or vice versa. Different specifications have
chosen different algorithms."
[Ian-MIT]
(IJ: XML 1.1 and XML NS 1.1 are now W3C Recs)
TBL: There *is* a single, special way. It's just not accepted.
I propose to change the spin: there is one way, but not always
taken for a variety of reasons (some good, some bad). The word
"context" is vague. It's rather: they've used them for other
things than elem and attrib names. Two points (1) seems
reasonable to use them to refer to other things, but issues
such as QName v. URI arise. (2) they could have used the ns 1.0
algo and didn't.
NW: First of all, I think the word context is used to mean
"environment" here.
TBL: Ok, I see.
NW: I *do* think the context is the important issue here. Note
that when XPointer tried to use the same mechanism, they were
told not to use the same mechanism (by the Director).
TBL: XPointers have their own special set of problems.
NW: XML Query uses a different mechanism as well - it's not in
XML.
[timbl]
Does this finding apply to N3? I thought we had resplevd to
make the title ".... XML content"
[Norm]
I don't recall that we agreed to that, though I do recall the
discussion. In any event, I think this findning has to cover
XML Query, and other non-XML specs, because they're clearly
inseperable from XML
[timbl]
I am now confused as to the scope of this document. I had a
relatively small change in mind, but in the discussion now I am
confused about the scope
[Ian-MIT]
SW: I'd like reviewers of the finding to send proposed changes
by email.
[timbl]
I REFUSE TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS THAT ITS SCOPE IS
NOT DEFINED.
I now have no idea what the scope of the document is. If it was
XML I had a small comment. If includes non-xml things, then I
would have to add a contratsing para about N3.
[Norm]
timbl, I now believe the scope is "wherever qnames are used"
[timbl]
Thanks norm. I'll go with that. Stuart, please consider my
action item w.r.t. the Qnames finding ongoing.
2.1.2 whenToUseGet-7
Issue [19]whenToUseGet-7
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#whenToUseGet-7
Action DC: Provide TAG with pointers into WS specs where issue of safe
operations is manifest.
[Ian-MIT]
DC: The more relevant bit is that someone asked for
clarification about what the finding says about WebServices.
Please continue
Action DO: Ask WSDL WG to look at finding; ask them if marking
operations as safe in WSDL is one of their requirements.
[Ian-MIT]
Proposal:
DO: I have not heard back after my [20]email; I was at the WSDL
ftf meeting and the issue did not come up while I was there. I
don't recall it being on the agenda. I will either prompt the
WG again or report the results.
SW: Ok; we can clean this up when we meet with them, if not
sooner.
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Dec/0006.html
2.1.3 contentTypeOverride-24
Issue [21]contentTypeOverride-24
[21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#contentTypeOverride-24
[Ian-MIT]
IJ: Revising the finding is on my to do list in light of
comments from SW and RF on [22]27 Jan 2004 draft.
[22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20040127
2.2 Web Architecture Document Last Call
RF joins the meeting.
* Review and acknowledge comments sent to
[23]public-webarch-comments@w3.org
+ See [24]thoughts on tracking LC comments from IJ
+ Comment threads from [25]public-webarch-comments@w3.org
o M
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Feb/0022.html
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/
ction IJ: Take into account pure editorial comments from
people.
2.2.1 Tony Hammond "[26]Initial Feedback on Web Arch W-D"
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2003Dec/0006.html
[Ian-MIT]
DC: I don't seem to be able to convince people to use term
"representation" OR "data format"
On whether to use other schemes than HTTP in stories.
DC, TBL: Not worth using other uri schemes in stories.
Sect 5 - Term Index. Maybe missing some terms?
TBL: In future version.
IJ: +1 to WWW, World Wide Web, URI (as cross-refs)
[timbl]
We need in the next version (after 1.0) a glossary with a model
- an ontology
[Ian-MIT]
Sect 6 - References. Still minded to have a division between
normative and informative refs.
[No proposal; no movement to change]
IJ: I will double check that all refs appear in the body.
[DanC_jam]
a goal of mine, for each comment, is to recruit somebody from
this meeting to respond in substance. any volunteers to respond
to Hammond?
[Ian-MIT]
Action NW: Send TAG a draft of a response to Hammond review in
light of TAG's discussion.
[Ian-MIT]
"Sect 2.4, last para, last sentence - 'When an agent does not
handle a new URI scheme, it cannot retrieve a representation.'
This seems prejudicial"
[timbl]
[27]http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-01-15-a.html
[27] http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-01-15-a.html
[Ian-MIT]
RF: Only time a URI scheme wouldn't be handled is during
dereference.
TBL: I'd like to flag the fact that he has brought up the
"info" URI scheme. I think reviewer is asking whether the arch
doc is wrong or whether the info scheme is not that useful.
Please put that question on our stack.
[timbl]
agenda1 = Info URI scheme
[28]http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-01-15-a.html
[28] http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-01-15-a.html
2.2.2 Bob DuCharme "[29]comments"
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2003Dec/0019.html
[Ian-MIT]
1.1 "at least" : editorial
1.1.3 "elements" : editorial
[Norm]
Bob writes well, I concur
[Ian-MIT]
[TAG concludes that these comments are largely editorial; IJ to
attend to.]
DO: I concur as well.
Action IJ: Handle Bob's comments as editorial.
2.2.3 Tom Worthington "[30]Simplify the text and separate the W3C politics"
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2003Dec/0020.html
[Ian-MIT]
PC: I disagree with this one. I think the document has right
level of examples.
RF: We are presenting more of an architectural justification
than a mere description.
Action PC: Respond to Tom Worthington, talking about arch doc /
findings balance, and pointing out that we are not creating a
point-form architectural thesis.
2.2.4 David Booth "[31]Definition of "Web agents", "URI ownership" and
typo"
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004Jan/0000.html
[Ian-MIT]
The document currently uses "agent" to include both "software"
and "people".
DC: I'm inclined to change Web agent to "party".
SW: Reluctant to introduce new terms.
[DanC_jam]
new term?
[Ian-MIT]
PC: I did not find DB's survey very compelling.
[timbl]
(Paul I wonder whether you could also try to answer the callers
question about iMode HTML in the previous one)
[Ian-MIT]
SW: I'm ok with another term, I just want consistency.
[DanC_jam]
prefer which, DaveO?
[Ian-MIT]
DC: I need a term that includes "software and people"
[DanC_jam]
I'm ok with "agent" or "party"
[Ian-MIT]
TBL: An agent is "something that does things"
[Stuart]
I am happy with agent being inclusive of people.
[Ian-MIT]
From Collaborative International Dictionary of English: "One
who exerts power, or has the power to act; an actor."
DC: I need these things to agree to things, initiate
communications, ....
[Stuart]
I am equally happy with agent being exclusive of people and
that we say "people and software" or "people and agents".
[Ian-MIT]
DC: I can live with "party" including software and people.
[timbl]
I think the word 'party" is obscure
[Ian-MIT]
DO: I agree with David's position on this one.
[timbl]
"agent or human" doesn't work, it would have to be "agent or
social entity"
plus a convention that one look at the tv ;-)
[Ian-MIT]
Support for changing usage of agent?
Yes: DO
Norm: RF
RF: "Agent" has too many loaded meanings. I had proposed
"components" [things in the system that are doing things] and
"connectors" [things that assist communication; pass-throughs]
I'd just remove the parentheticals that appear in the Arch Doc.
[mario]
RF+1. I also don't like the term "agent" very much. Due to it's
overloaded meaning. Agent also sounds some kind overloaded
within the AI enviroment.
[Ian-MIT]
DO: Do we have a summary of our reasoning and alternatives to
offer to readers?
[DanC_jam]
mario, any alternatives to suggest?
[DanC_jam]
3 options: (1) accept somebody's offer to defend the status quo
[timbl?] (2) accept an action to change webarch to say
something else.
(3) [now I forget]
[Ian-MIT]
DO: I'm ok with current language; I support complementary
materials to explain our choice.
[timbl]
What about "actor"? [32]Bartleby definition says:"A being,
body, creature, homo, human, human being, individual, life,
man, mortal, person, personage, soul. See BEINGS. 5. One who
participates: actor, participant, player."
[33]http://www.bartleby.com/62/61/P1096100.html
[32] http://www.bartleby.com/62/61/P1096100.html
[33] http://www.bartleby.com/62/61/P1096100.html
[Ian-MIT]
Action TBL: Respond to DB on TAG's choice of agent - the status
quo.
[timbl]
How about "mortal" as it sums up what people have in common
with software?
[Ian-MIT]
Proposed: Defend the status qou.
Abstain: DO, RF
No objections.
Resolved: Defend the status quo usage of "agent".
On 2.2 URI Ownership: Following the lessons of the "deep
linking" debacle, it might be good to say explicitly what
rights "URI ownership" does or does ot confer. This is somewhat
addressed later, but it might be good to say something in this
section.
[Stuart]
wrt to agent I also think it would be useful to the defnintion
that Dan found in November.
[Ian-MIT]
TBL: I have tried to eliminate this concept and failed.
DC: I like the text that's in here currently. I can live
without "The social implications of URI ownership are not
discussed here."
PC : Propose we forward link from 2.2 to 3.6.3.
RF: "Authority responsible for" is redundant.: Change to "The
authority for"
IJ: Hmm.
[Stuart]
Are 'authority' and 'ownership' synonymous?
[Ian-MIT]
SW: Maybe eliminate one term.
[DanC_jam]
stuart, you're not happy with [[ The phrase "authority
responsible for a URI" is synonymous with "URI owner" in this
document. ]] ?
[Stuart]
No Dan I think I'd be happy with that.
[DanC_jam]
why "would", stuart? are you or are you not?
I'm quoting from webarch 9Dec
[Ian-MIT]
Action IJ: Include forward link from 2.2 to 3.6.3.
DC: We are treating "URI ownership" as editorlal as well.
2.2.5 Tim Goodwin "[34]Comments on 9 December 2003 draft"
[34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004Jan/0001.html
Editorial, as the reviewer indicates.
Action IJ: Take these comments into account.
2.2.6 Patrick Stickler "[35]Comments on "Architecture of the World Wide
Web, First Edition"
[35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004Feb/0000.html
[Ian-MIT]
DC: I support his first example.
[36]http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#dereference-uri
IJ: There was, in a previous draft of the arch doc, a statement
a long the lines of "URIs without frag ids are more useful";
e.g., frag ids don't make it through proxies. (Section 3.3.1,
para 2:)
"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?"
TBL: The answer is "no". Nor is "GET" I read this as "Can I
delete an anchor in an HTML file?"
DO: I do, too.
DC: I don't
RF: I think the reviewer wants us to point out this observation
about the Web.
DC: DO is right, we don't address this point currently in the
arch doc.
TBL: Web of conceptual objects build on a layer of another Web
of conceptual objects.
DO: Is there a hole in the architecture that a client can't
talk to the server about secondary resources?
TBL, DC: I don't regard that as a hole.
RF: I hear the proposal that we should include this discussion
in the document.
DC: I don't see any line between this discussion and
httpRange-14. I think we can respond "We agree that this is not
treated well in this version of the arch doc."
PC: What about "The use of URIs with frag identifiers for
PUT/POST/DELETE"?
[36] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#dereference-uri
[timbl]
Issue14-complete. We hope to address this more fully in the
next edition
[Ian-MIT]
RF: In RFC2616, frag id not allowed in request. This is
intentional; it must be handled at the client.
[DanC_jam]
[37]http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec5.html#sec5.
1.2
[37] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec5.html#sec5.1.2
[Ian-MIT]
RF: So it's an error to try to use DELETE with a URI with a
frag id.
[timbl]
Roy: A frgament is not allowed in teh URI in an HTTP request.
[Ian-MIT]
RF: This is described in the URI spec.
[Stuart]
I think the commentator is complaining that the first step in
deferenncing a U#F is to actually deference a different URI, ie
U. I think here he is *just* asking us to be clearer about what
it means to deference U#F (operationally).
[Ian-MIT]
PC: RFC 2616 says "MUST NOT" incliude a fragment.
[Stuart]
The paragraph he's complaining about starts "Per [URI], in
order to know the authoritative interpretation of a fragment
identifier, one must dereference the URI containing the
fragment identifier."
[Ian-MIT]
RF: The Web library won't allow this either. The frag ids are
only used for comparison and for assertion.
[Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to suggest we discuss teh info URI scheme and
to note that DAWG may address this in the distant future when
the secondary resurce is an RDF node.
[Ian-MIT]
DAWG: Data Access Working Group
[DanC_jam]
(I heard RDF)
[38]http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter
[38] http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter
[Ian-MIT]
DO: The specs talk about how a client deals with a secondary
resource on the client side. But I can't do any server-side
operations on secondary resources. I can't put info in a URI, I
have to put info (about secondary resource) in the message.
TBL: You do have that today: You can do a GET, do operations on
the client side, and PUT data back to the server.
[DanC_jam]
(this discussion shows to me that the terms "primary resource"
and "secondary resource" are handy to have; I have had doubts
about whether they were worth having)
[Ian-MIT]
DO: People are talking about doing operations on secondary
resources.
SW: I volunteer to think about it some more.
Action SW: Propose to the TAG a reponse to P. Stickler's
message.
"Parties that draw conclusions about the interpretation of a
fragment identifier without retrieving a representation do so
at their own risk; such interpretations are not authoritative."
TBL: I disagree with Patrick.
RF: You cannot infer the properties of the frag id by
retrieving the representation. Things change over time.
DC: We address persistence elsewhere. I disagree with RF's
point.
"Per [URI], in order to know the authoritative interpretation
of a fragment identifier, one must dereference the URI
containing the fragment identifier."
[Stuart]
No... I think that the TAG was saying it was ok. to construct
identifiers in frag-id space... I don't think that the TAG said
anything about running it backward - interpreting the frag id.
I volunteer to enlarge my action item and propose responses to
more of Patrick's message.
2.2.7 Martin Dürst "[39]Schedule for RFC2396bis" (and an LC Comment)
[39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004Feb/0001.html
[Ian-MIT]
RF: I've made a majority of the changes he's suggested (in the
past few days).
PC: I think our response is that we understand our dependency
on this spec. We don't see what we can do to help the
dependency. Question is whether we can move out of LC with
normative dependence on RFC2396.
Action PC: Respond to MD, acknowledging the dependency.
2.3 RDFinXHTML-35 and GRDDL
See email from DanC: [40]Presenting GRDDL and [41]slides from DC,
which DC presented.
[40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Feb/0023.html
[41] http://www.w3.org/2003/g/talk/all.htm
CL joined the meeting during this item.
[Ian-MIT]
"anyone can say anything about anything"
DC: some RDDL designs have not met this requirement.
[timbl]
(They did not allow one to state the subject of an assertion,
it was always implicitly the current document)
<link rel="metadata" href="aboutfoo.rdf"/>
[Ian-MIT]
"HotComments": RDF in XHTML comments.
* Semantic Web CG, Hypertext CG start public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf
DC: Pattern is to use a specialized dialect of XHTML, write a
program to extract data, link to that program from your
document. Use the "profile" hook to ground the term
"transformation".
[timbl]
Step 3 means "You should interpret a rel=transformation link
along the lines of step 2".
[Stuart]
Does this use of <head> ie adding the profile attribute 'eat'
the whole of <head>
ie you couldn't have another <head> section with a different
profile to extract different data?
[Ian-MIT]
IJ: Any reason not to use URI in META/name?
DC: GRDDL says it's the user's choice.
[timbl]
Step 2 means "You can interprest this document in RDF using
this using this XSLT script"
[Ian-MIT]
SW: Can you use multiple profiles?
DC: Yes.
GRDDL XSLT service demo, example
DC: Different xslt scripts; one profile
DO: Given that there's no std processing model for knowing when
you are at intermediate or end processing, how do you know
which kind of infoset you're supposed to reverse transform on?
DC: GRDDL works on the xhtml it gets back from the HTTP server.
TBL: I'm the heretic about XML processing model: I think it's
good to have only one. Expand XInclude first.
[timbl]
I think this hsould happen *after* xinclude. I think it should
work on the result of XML-level stuff.
[Ian-MIT]
DO: My question is "on what thing do you start doing the
reverse transform from."
DC: I had not considered that; I was just answering from the
code we have written.
IJ: Heads up - 404 for
[42]http://www.w3.org/2003/data-view.html#transformation
DC: copy paste bug
[42] http://www.w3.org/2003/data-view.html#transformation
[timbl]
local link to further on
[Ian-MIT]
DC: GRDDL drawback: turing completeness. Consumer may have to
run untrusted code. But digital sig might be an approach.
Well-known transformations might be another approach -
recognition of well-known stuff.
PC: I thought of Schema. Aren't you describing semantic
processing that belongs in the schema?
DC to PC: Wait two slides...
DC: Principle of Least Power. hmm... belongs in webarch
somewhere? GRDDL Semantics: explicit, grounded in the Web.
Whatever syntax is used, you can trace it back to URIs. We
didn't finish our discussion of URI-based flexibility points
before webarch last call. Let's resume, please! Grounding terms
in the Web.
[timbl]
only if the q empties before the end of the meeting.
[Ian-MIT]
DC: I agree with PC - doing this on a per-document basis is
suboptimal; would be better, e.g., at namespace level.
[Zakim]
CL, you wanted to ask about reusability
[Ian-MIT]
CL: How re-usable are these transformations?
DC: I intend to make 7-8 html dialects in the next few months.
DO: Some transformations are lossy. It would be interesting if
you had some material on what kind of transformations are
lossy. A simple example is a name - if you go from
FirstName/FamilyName/Suffice/Etc., you have lost information.
[Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to discuss this one about post-transformed
stuff and to say that this puts ont the shopping list a safe
subset of XSLT, and it might be worth mentioning in the arch
doc next version.
[DanC_jam]
(in short, GRDDL is not nearly as useful in anything
lossy/fuzzy)
[Ian-MIT]
TBL: I think this is good stuff. It highlights the issue with
the processing model. Having a default processing model for XML
would be nice. That XInclude doesn't define that explicitly is
a problem.
[DanC_jam]
(Chris, I'm still thinking thru your comments; I could think
out loud here, but I see 3 minutes left in the meeting, unless
we extend)
[Ian-MIT]
TBL: If you're going to use this mechanism "live" it'd be nice
to have a safe subset of XSLT. By safe here I mean that
strictly a function of input data, doesn't let you write, limit
processor memory usage, doesn't let you access info server is
privy to, etc.
[Stuart]
dc, thats fine. it can be done in email
[Ian-MIT]
PC: Regarding this proposal - people will not want to pull a
URI out of a document and execute code that's at the end of the
URI.
DC: We run an online service. It's not too bad so far. But I
agree that this is the #1 drawback with this approach.
TBL: I note that MS products already run style sheets on the
client that are specified by the author. This is "for humans".
The above proposal is the same, but for machines.
SW: Where should this discussion take place?
DC: I expect that HTML Task Force to be rolled into the Sem Web
BP WG. The Task Force is just a mailing list.
SW: Please let the HTML WG know that this topic is on the
agenda of the Sem Web BP WG meeting. Anyone with a stake, for
that matter, should know.
[DanC_jam]
DaveO, we have this coded up; I'm happy to discuss it any time.
Feel awkward discussing at T+4min, where T is the scheduled
adjournment time.
[Ian-MIT]
[IJ goes to another meeting]
[DanC_jam]
oh well.
_________________________________________________________________
The TAG did not discuss the topics below this line.
IETF/W3C joint meeting update from DC.
* [43]namespaceDocument-8
1. [44]RDDL2 Background from Tim Bray.
2. [45]grokRDDL.xsl mapping to RDF from Dan Connolly.
[43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8
[44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0045.html
[45] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0026.html
3. Planning for 2004
* Future versions of WebArch
* Webarch Diagrams and Companion Documents
* Goals/Milestones for 2004
* Priority Issues.
4. Follow-up on Internationalization Issues
* [46]charmodReview-17
1. [47]actions
2. TAG finding related to adoption of Charmod? See [48]mail from
TBL
* [49]URIEquivalence-15
* [50]IRIEverywhere-27
[46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#charmodReview-17
[47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions.html#charmodReview-17
[48] http://www.w3.org/mid/361483C6-96E6-11D7-9C47-000393914268@w3.org
[49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#URIEquivalence-15
[50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#IRIEverwhere-27
5. Status report on these findings
See also [51]TAG findings
* [52]contentTypeOverride-24:
+ 27 Jan 2004 draft finding "[53]Client handling of MIME
headers"
[51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
[52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
[53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20040127.html
* [54]abstractComponentRefs-37:
+ 30 Oct 2003 draft finding "[55]Abstract Component References"
* [56]contentPresentation-26:
+ 30 June 2003 draft finding "[57]Separation of semantic and
presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
architecturally sound"
* [58]metadataInURI-31
* [59]siteData-36
+ "[60]There is no such thing as a Web site"
[54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
[55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
[56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
[57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
[58] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
[59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
[60] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/01/08/WebSite36
6. Other action items
* 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
_________________________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2004/02/11 22:56:51 $
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2004 17:59:56 UTC