10 May 2004 Editor's Draft of Architecture Document - reviewer responses requested

Hello,

In preparation for the TAG's face-to-face meeting this week, I've
made available the 10 May 2004 Editor's Draft of the Architecture
Document:
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/

This draft supersedes the 7 May draft; I incorporated a few extra
changes I had wanted to make based on TAG resolutions.

The remainder of this email includes information about:

 1) Diff resources
 2) List of issues addressed

Below there is a list of names and issue URIs. If your name is
on the list (and in the "To" line above), it means that this
draft MAY address the issues that you raised that are listed
below. Each issue URI points to details of the proposal to
address your issue.

Although the TAG has not yet agreed to these proposals,
I welcome your comments about proposals that concern your
issues; please send those comments to public-webarch-comments@w3.org. In
particular, please indicate whether the text as proposed satisfies you
for that issue or
how it might be edited to satisfy you.

Thank you,

 - Ian

================
1 Diff resources
================

This draft consists of a number of proposals to address Last
Call issues; the TAG has not yet reviewed these proposals.
Here is an annotated Last Call draft with proposals listed inline:
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/webarchWithProposals.html

  Note: The annotated draft does not show all proposed edits,
  only those corresponding directly to an issue.

----------------
Diff files (only useful for parts of the document):

  Diff between the 7 May and 10 May drafts:
    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/diff-20040507


  Diff between the 10 May draft and the Last Call draft:
    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/diff-20031209

----------------
Lists of changes:

  Changes between the Last Call draft and the 7 May draft:
    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/changes#changes-20040510

  Changes between the 7 May draft and the 10 May draft:
    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/changes#changes-20040507

==================
2 Issues addressed
==================

This draft includes proposals to address the following Last Call
issues:

 a) From Tony Hammond
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#hammond2


 b) From Elliotte Rusty Harold
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#harold1


 c) From David Karr
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#karr1


 d) From Bob DuCharme
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#ducharme1


 e) From David Booth
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#booth2
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#booth3


 f) From Tim Goodwin
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#goodwin1


 g) From Patrick Stickler
   
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler1
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler2
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler3
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler5
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler6
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler7
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler9
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#stickler10

   I did not incorporated the following editorial suggestions
   from Patrick:

     Section 3.2, para 1, last sentence:

        Consider changing to "A message may even include metadata
        about the message itself (for message-integrity checks, for
        instance).

     Section 3.3.1, last para, last sentence:

        This last sentence could either be removed or
        clarified/reworked.

 h) From Peter Patel-Schneider 

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#pps1


 i) From Sandro Hawke

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#hawke2
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#hawke3
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#hawke4
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#hawke7
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#hawke8
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#hawke9
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#hawke10

   I did not implement the suggestion that the media type for
   the first example be changed from "application/xhtml+xml"
   to the simpler "text/html" (although I did fix the graphic
   and text to be consistent).

   
 j) From Dominique Hazael-Massieux

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#dhm1
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#dhm2
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#dhm5
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#dhm6
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#dhm7


 k) From Danny Weitzner

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#weitzner1


 l) From Jacek Kopecky

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#kopecky1
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#kopecky6

   I did not adjust the definition of "Link" in the term index.


 m) From Martin Duerst

    
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#duerst1


 n) From the Device Independence Working Group
    [Stephane Boyera addressed here]

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#diwg2
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#diwg3


 o) From Kendall Clark

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#clark5
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#clark7
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#clark8
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#clark11
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#clark12

 p) From Ken Laskey

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#laskey1


 q) From Al Gilman

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#gilman1


 r) From Susan Lesch
  
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#lesch1


 s) From the XML Schema Working Group
    [Michael Sperberg-McQueen addressed here]

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema1
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema4
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema15
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema17
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema18
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema19
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema20
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema21

   For schema4, the Schema WG asked for a stronger statement
   along the lines of "Don't use content negotiation", which I
   did not add.

   For schema21 (editorial issues), I did not address these points:

    [3.5.1] We are surprised to not see a best practice
            recommendation here.

    [4.5.3] (And elsewhere) If namespace prefixes are used, there
            should be a table indicating their bindings to URIs.

    [4.5.6] and [4.5.8] highlight a lot of problems, but make no
            recommendations about what to do about them.


 t) From Michael Sperberg-McQueen

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#msm2
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#msm3

   I did not remove the shadow from the illustration as Michael
   recommended.

 u) From Bijan Parsia

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#parsia20


 v) From Graham Klyne

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne1
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne11
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne12


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