- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:45:20 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello,
Minutes of the 26 Aug 2002 TAG teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.
- Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/08/26-tag-summary.html
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
===============================================
[1]W3C [2]| TAG | Previous:[3]19 Aug | Next: 30 Aug
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/08/19-tag-summary
Minutes of 26 August 2002 TAG teleconference
Nearby: [4]Teleconference details · [5]issues list · [6]www-tag
archive
[4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/#remote
[5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/
1. Administrative
1. Roll call: NW (Chair), IJ (Scribe), DC, DO, TB, RF. Regrets: TBL,
SW, PC. Absent: CL
2. Accepted [7]19 Aug minutes
3. Accepted this [8]agenda
4. Next meeting: 30 August. 2 September meeting canceled.
[7] http://www.w3.org/2002/08/19-tag-summary
[8] http://www.w3.org/2002/08/26-tag
1.2 Completed actions
* Action IJ 2002/08/19: Put back [Cool] in persistence section of
Arch document. Remove comment about children and URIs.
* Action SW and IJ 2002/08/19: Work on some language regarding using
URI to interact v. specifically to GET. Though not done with SW
and IJ, there is language to this effect in the 26 August arch
document.
2. Technical
* 2.1 [9]Architecture document
* 2.2 [10]RFC3023Charset-21
* 2.3 [11]xlinkScope-23
* 2.4 [12]augmentedInfoset-22
* 2.5 [13]New issue: contentPresentation-26
* [14]Postponed
2.1 Architecture document
Comments on [15]26 August draft. See, in particular, [16]comments from
TB. IJ will fix typos listed in that email.
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0826-archdoc.html
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Aug/0314.html
[Ian]
Resolved: Move following to 1.3 (limits of the doc): " Some of
these principles may conflict with current practice, and so
education and outreach will be required to improve on that
practice. Other principles may fill in gaps in published
specifications or may call attention to known weaknesses in
those specifications."
TB: About "The FTP scheme is for ftp file names (including DNS
domain names)", I suggest instead "FTP-accessible data".
DC: I think mostly for file names. I'd rather keep the part
people are familiar with.
[No change]
TB: I think we need a paragraph saying that RFC2396 defines
something called a URI Reference. I think we need to ack the
term "URI reference" just before 2.1.
Resolved: Accept proposal from TB to ack the term "URI
reference."
TB: "2.1 para beginning "Some resources do not have URIs".
First of all I don't agree, second what's the practical effect
even if it's true, third
denumerable means you *can't* give one to every real number.
Lose the paragraph, it adds no value"
DC: Maybe a footnote.
RF: I don't believe that URIs are equivalent to integer
numbers; they are equivalent to real numbers.
TB: The space of URIs is countable.
DC: See [17]Of Infinite Sets in "A Crash Course in the
Mathematics".
Resolved: Move "Some resources do not have URIs. URIs are
denumerable, which means there are enough to give one to every
real number without collisions, for example." to footnote.
[17] http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/infapp.htm
Action IJ and NW: Work on this footnote text.
Propose to delete "Open Say something here à la what Tim Bray
said: "Designers SHOULD NOT build a world of resources that
cannot be identified by URI."?"
TB: I retract comment that some interactions not through
representations.
RF: You POST and PUT through representations.
DC: Not clear that a POST does.
RF: There's a representation of the information you're sending.
I didn't say representation of resource, but representation of
a form (for example). I'm comfortable with "One interacts with
a resource through representations of the resource. But there's
more to it than that (e.g., control data in a request).
[No change for now]
TB: Propose to delete " A representation may be full fidelity,
i.e. a complete description, or it may be partial, i.e.
describes some aspect of the resource. "
IJ: I think there may be a place for something like this
regarding fragments.
No clear action; IJ may delete current text.
TB: We haven't defined what a media type is. Are you guaranteed
to know what it is?
TB: "2.2.1, 1st para, last sentence. Need introductory words in
that a representation of a resource is often (usually? always?)
accompanied by
supplementary information defined per MIME [reference] called
its media-type, and then proceed as written."
TB: s/recursive/successive application of specifications.
NW: Yes, "successive"
Resolved: Change "recursive" to "successive".
[DanC]
I'm no longer following at speed; I don't mind Tim Bray and Ian
going over these comments like this, but please don't let the
record indicate that I've endorsed all these changes.
[Ian]
IJ: Did I miss anything in the example in 2.2.1?
TB: Seemed ok.
TB: The following sentence needs a lot of work "Each valid use
of an absolute URI reference unambiguously identifies one
resource."
TB: "following all the other relevant protocol specifications"
is underspecified.
DC: Simplest to say "Each absolute URI reference unambiguously
identifies one resource."
DC, TB: Yes.
Resolved: Change that principle (remove "valid") to "Each
absolute URI reference unambiguously identifies one resource."
2.3.1. Absolute URI references and context-sensitivity
TB: I think this text is clearly wrong. I think publishing
"file:/etc/hosts" on the Web is clearly wrong.
RF: Why is that?
TB: You could make the arg that the resource is the list of
hosts on your computer.
DC: I think our arch doc should answer this question.
RF: Roy has a use case (documentation from Apple). Use the news
URL as an example (e.g., that points to a group); it doesn't
refer to the group in the universe of net news, but the group
as viewed by your news server.
DC: I disagree. If you publish a news URI in the public
Internet, you should expect it to be used in various contexts.
RF: Not all newsgroups are global.
TB:
1. URIs have varying degrees of context-sensitivity
2. You need to think carefully about the degree of
context-sensitivity when you publish a URI.
IJ: Then add "3. An absolute URI reference SHOULD denote the
same resource or concept independent of the context(s) in which
the identifier is used.
RF: The principle is that they should always refer to the same
resource.
Action IJ: Tweak this text to reflect TB and RF comments.
Resolved. Move "Open: issue deepLinking-25: What to say in
defense of principle that deep linking is not an illegal act?"
to 2.2
[DanC]
[overall, from the level of TimBray's comments, even though I
haven't read the 19Aug draft carefully, I gather we've reached
the 'make it a /TR/ WD' point]
[Ian]
TB: 3.2-3.5 The MVC paradigm is a currently-fashionable way of
thinking about UI software engineering. I happen to think it's
highly overrated
and unproven in practice, but that's not the point, the point
is that the architecture of the Web doesn't depend on it in the
slightest, so it
has no place in this document. The Web Arch does not depend on
the MVC in any way. Delete it.
RF: How about separation of content and presentation?
TB: I agree with that. A statement that "To the extend you can,
you win when you separate rendering/style from content."
DO: Is content v. presentation specific to Web arch?
TB: I think we need this as a web arch principle. Don't be
absolute in separation of content/presentation. That's an
ideal. See [18]my post on www-tag on this topic.
DC: Content v. Presentation may not be specific to Web, but
it's certainly what WGs should be thinking about.
NW: I am favorable to a principle about presentation v.
structure.
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Aug/0191.html
[Roy]
BTW, I delete all messages cross-posted to other www mailing
lists without reading.
[Ian]
Resolved: Leave MVC for now. There is some sentiment that this
should be deleted. Need to hear from CL.
IJ: Is this enough to publish as a first public WD?
DC: I think so.
TB: I think it's good enough (with some more editorial
polishing)
DO: I can work with IJ this week to incorporate more REST
material.
TB: What publication schedule logistics are we talking about?
[DanC]
DaveO, is the text on REST handy somewhere?
DO: [19]Short version. [20]Long version.
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0061.html
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Mar/0023.html
[ian_]
TB: I would support publishing as is with a week's worth of
editorial polishing.
IJ Proposal for this week:
1. Allow new text until Weds 12pm ET this week.
2. IJ will produce new draft for TAG by Weds afternoon ET.
3. The TAG can comment until Thursday evening ET.
4. IJ will delete new portions about which there are objections.
5. IJ will request publication as first public WD on Friday.
RF: In my opinion, this draft describes about 20% of Web arch.
DC: Yes, somewhere in that ballpark.
DC: Can the chair be in the critical path on the decision to
publish?
NW: I will agree to stand in the critical path.
Action DC: Get another w3m member to approve short name (since
first public WD): webarch
Action IJ: Talk to Janet about press release issue.
Resolved: Next meeting meeting Friday 30 Aug at 3pm ET. Will
attend: DC, DO, NW, TB, IJ. Probable regrets from RF. No
meeting 2 September. Following meeting 9 September.
Open actions:
1. Action DC 2002/08/12: Ask www-tag for volunteers to work with TAG
(and possibly IETF) on HTTP URI stuff; CRISP. [This action
supersedes the previous action: Ask IESG when IETF decided not to
[ use HTTP URIs to name protocols.] [21]Sent. Awaiting reply.
2. Action TBL: 2002/07/15: Create a table of URI properties.
3. Action IJ 2002/07/08: Produce WD of Arch Doc. Harvest from
[22]DanC's URI FAQ. Deadline 30 August.
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Aug/0196.html
[22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ures14.html
2.2 RFC3023Charset-21
1. Chris sent [23]information to www-tag. What is necessary to close
issue [24]RFC3023Charset-21?
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0323.html
[24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RFC3023Charset-21
Action IJ: Work CL language into "[25]TAG Finding: Internet Media Type
registration, consistency of use". Ping PC to let him know (since he
has some text to change as well).
[25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime
2.3xlinkScope-23
What is the priority of [26]xlinkScope-23?
[26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xlinkScope-23
[ian_]
TB: Becoming an issue since HTML WG talking about an hlink
attrib (is this correct?) even though xlink:href available.
NW: Related - what's the right way to do xlink? with xlink:href
or what HTML WG wants to do?
TB: What are the conditions under which xlink should be used?
Should we define? Should we enforce? SVG did, SMIL didn't, HTML
getting ready not to.
DC: When you point from one point of an svg doc to another, do
you point to an element or to the circle it describes?
[Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to mention the SVG XLink issue that I saw, via
Prescod: pointing to circles vs pointing to elements that
describe circles
[ian_]
NW: I think that DC's issue is new. What is the priority of
this issue?
TB: High priority as soon as hlink gets published?: Other rec
track docs making the choice about how to implement linking
primitives?
IJ: See also the[27]CSS3 hyperlinking spec.
NW, TB: Yes, this is part of the same issue.
DO: I'm not convinced this is high-priority. XLink hasn't
thrived; it seems that there are more important issues we could
be working on.
DC: But it costs W3C a lot to wonder whether to use XLink.
NW: Should we try to do something before hlink draft made
public?
TB: In current XHTML 2.0, proposal to have an href attribute on
every element (in the body).
[NW and TB expect to talk about this offline.]
NW: Proposal is that publication of the hlink spec is a gating
factor; no further action until that's published.
[27] http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css3-src/css3-links/Overview.html
2.4 augmentedInfoset-22
See [28]Request from Tim Bray to decide issue augmentedInfoset-22
(disposition = closed). Pushback from Simon St. Laurent.
1. ACTION DC 2002/06/17: Talk to XML Schema WG about PSVI. Report to
tag, who expects to decide whether to add as an issue next week.
DanC has sent email; awaiting reply from XML Scheme WG.
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0159.html
[ian_]
DC: I didn't get a reply saying "We're confused."
TB: Did PSVI API get into the [29]DOM charter?
IJ: Yes, from 3.2 Out of scope: "post-schema-validation infoset
(PSVI), An object model for accessing and modifying the PSVI."
TB: So no group within W3C is mandated (at this time) to do
further work on describing the PSVI.
DC: The Schema WG is doing a 1.1 version of the spec that
certainly talks about the PSVI.
TB: I learned that while there are linkages between xquery and
xml schema, they are non-normative; you can implement xquery
with other schema languages; so I don't see an arch issue at
the moment. I submitted a large comment to the xquery process
that there does remain too much intermingling with xml schema
that could easily go away. If they tell me to go away, I will
come back to the TAG.
DC: I've also had the query designers say "It's that way in xml
schema, so we have to do it that way."
TB: I will reraise as an arch issue if unnecessary linkage from
query to schema remains.
Resolved: Close [30]augmentedInfoset-22 as phrased. We may have
to reopen it at some point.
Action IJ: Update issues list.
[29] http://www.w3.org/2002/05/dom-wg-charter.html
[30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#augmentedInfoset-22
2.5 New issue: contentPresentation-26
See, in particular, [31]email from Sean Palmer on separation of
content and presentation.
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Aug/0164.html
[ian_]
DC: It would be sufficient for me to say "See WAI for
information about separation of content / presentation"
TB: Seems like more of the same of what I posted earlier. I
suggest we raise a formal issue.
[Norm]
Issue: structureStyle-26?
No, structurePresentation is probably better
[ian_]
structurePresentation-26 ok by me.
[DanC]
google seems to know it as "Separation of form and content"
[Roy]
Day Software's marketing line: "Everything is Content" ;-)
[Norm]
contentPresentation-26
[ian_]
Resolved: Accept issue contentPresentation-26.
Action IJ: Announce issue. Point to [32]TB's text as draft of
finding.
[32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Aug/0191.html
Another issue: Use of frags in SVG v. in XML
RF: Hearsay that SVG refers to an object, not an element.
NW: frag id meaning is determined by media type.
RF: I like thinking of element as representation and object as
resource.
Action DC: Describe this issue in more detail for the TAG.
Postponed
1. [33]httpRange-14: Need to make progress here to advance in Arch
Document.
2. [34]Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use.
+ Action PC [35]2002/07/08: Propose alternative cautionary
wording for finding regarding IANA registration. Refer to
"[36]How to Register a Media Type with IANA (for the IETF
tree) "
3. [37]deepLinking-25
4. [38]uriMediaType-9: Status of negotiation with IETF? See
[39]message from DanC.
+ Action TBL: Get a reply from the IETF on the TAG finding.
5. Status of [40]URIEquivalence-15. Relation to Character Model of
the Web (chapter 4)? See text from TimBL on [41]URI
canonicalization and [42]email from Martin in particular. See more
[43]comments from Martin.
1. What should a finding look like for this?
6. Status of discussions with WSA WG about SOAP/WSDL/GET/Query
strings?
+ ACTION DO 2002/06/24: Contact WSDL WG about this issue
(bindings, query strings and schemas) to ensure that it's on
their radar. See [44]discussions from 24 Jun TAG teleconf.
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#httpRange-14
[34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime
[35] http://www.w3.org/2002/07/08-tag-summary#media-types
[36] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#deepLinking-25
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#uriMediaType-9
[39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Jun/0095.html
[40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#URIEquivalence-15
[41] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#canonicalization
[42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0161
[43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0275.html
[44] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-tag-summary.html#wsa-get
_________________________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/08/26 22:24:47 $
Received on Monday, 26 August 2002 18:49:11 UTC