- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:00:11 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello,
Minutes of the 30 Aug TAG teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.
- Ian
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
========================================================
W3C | TAG | Previous:26 Aug | Next: 9 Sep
Minutes of 30 August 2002 TAG teleconference
Nearby: Teleconference details · issues list · www-tag
archive
1. Administrative
1. Roll call: NW (Chair), TB, CL, DC, IJ, DO
(partial). Regrets: TBL, PC, SW, RF
2. Accepted 26 Aug minutes
3. Accepted this agenda
4. Next meeting: 9 Sep. Regrets: IJ, possibly CL.
1.2 Completed actions confirmed
1. Action IJ 2002/07/08: Produce WD of Arch Doc.
Harvest from DanC's URI FAQ. Deadline 30 August.
Done: See 30 August draft.
2. Arch doc actions from 26 August:
1. All resolutions taken into account.
2. Action IJ and NW: Work on this footnote text.
Foot note deleted.
3. Action IJ: Tweak this text to reflect TB and
RF comments.
4. Action IJ: Talk to Janet about press release
issue. No press release.
5. Action DC: Get another w3m member to approve
short name (since first public WD): webarch
3. Action IJ: Update issues list w.r.t. closing
augmentedInfoset-22
4. Action IJ: Announce new issue
contentPresentation-26.
2. Technical issues
1. Comments on Architecture Document
2. xlinkScope-23
3. deepLinking-25
4. uriMediaType-9
5. URIEquivalence-15
6. Postponed
2.1 Comments on Architecture Document
The TAG is happy about the publication of the 30 August
draft of the Architecture Document.
[Ian]
DC: Easy or hard to decided to publish?
NW: I was comfortable.
TB: Polish has improved intensely.
[DanConn]
Architectural Principles of the World Wide Web
W3C Working Draft 30 August 2002
^hooray!
If anybody comes up with speaking points, please
share them.
[Ian]
[Press issues]
IJ: I think Janet Daly will be happy if TB
alerts the press.
CL: I would be pleased.
IJ: What pieces in section 2 are sorely missing?
TB: I think over next few meetings, I think arch
doc improvements should be high priority. I
would focus on section 3 next.
NW: Focus on issues pre-ftf, then new text after
tag ftf meeting.
TB: I think sections shouldn't be here unless
they contain principles.
[DanConn]
^hmm... interesting idea
"9. Do not use unregistered URI schemes:" looks
like a good practice thingy more than a
principle.
[Ian]
IJ: Not addition of good practice note. May also
justify a section.
[DanConn]
"When one expects to interact with a resource"
<- stilted. I hope we can do away with that sort
of language.
[Ian]
IJ: Also, sections exist where there are issues.
NW: 2.2.3 linked to frag ids.
CL: Frag ids halfway between ids and formats.
TB: 2.2.3 suggests a good practice note: "Be
careful about using frag ids in the following
situations."
[DanConn]
"2.6. Some generalities about absolute URI
references"
IJ: I'm not sure 2.6 will still be around, in
the end, but it's kind of handy, and I'm not
sure where that material is covered elsewhere
yet.
[Ian]
IJ: I think 2.6 might be exploded. But I think
it's a useful FAQ..
TB: Yes, I think it's correct to leave here for
now, until we figure it out.
IJ: Is there something major missing in section
2? Please speak up soon if so.
2.2 xlinkScope-23
See issue xlinkScope-23
[Ian]
TB: See may comments on traffic on xml-dev on
this issue.
[DanConn]
hm... s/Recently Published Working
Drafts/Working Drafts this Month/
(the "Recently Published" words at the start of
headings makes it hard to navigate the /TR/
page)
[Ian]
[Some discussion of hlink specification from
HTML WG.]
TB: I think being a linking schema language is a
useful way to think about hlink
NW: Difficult to have discussions on this draft
since not yet published.
CL: I think the TAG should request that the HTML
WG publish this.
DC: I nominate CL to ask them.
Resolved: to encourage HTML WG to publish their
recent work related to linking.
Action CL: Request that this be done (through
HTML CG, WG, or whatever works)
2.3 deepLinking-25
See issue deepLinking-25
[Ian]
DC: Joseph Reagle now in the loop; see message
from Joseph.
TB: He debunks the notion that we are wasting
our time talking about it.
NW: I think that we would agree that the web
arch would be broken if you had to ask for
permission before creating a link.
DC: It's not a good model for human
communication.
TB: The Web arch includes sufficient
infrastructure that, if you want to establish
access control, there is a good and automated
way to use that (per spec), and doing so is
fine.
DC: If you put a sign on your store "Don't come
in after 8pm" without a lock, you would be
silly.
TB: Publication of a URI without access control
is an invitation to dereference.
CL: Also, confusion between publication of
content and how it's used. How I use material is
relevant.
DC: Someone is committing fraud if they change
the referrer field value.
TB: I might be inclined to go after someone in
court.
IJ: Sounds like TB perilously on the edge of a
finding...
DC: Everything we do is related to public
policy.
CL: There is also the W3C T&S Domain.
DO: Go for it TB!
CL: I have a concern: Suppose I have a UA that
takes note of information about a page, and
stores it in a bookmark. And the UA knows that
if it sends a referrer value, it will get the
desired content.
DC: Fraud is closely related to intent. The
principle is that links are like citations. I
can talk about anybody's stuff.
TB: I agree.
DC: Misrepresentation is another story (e.g.,
copyright infringement).
CL: But framing may be used for purposes other
than deception.
TB: The court enters for edge cases. That's
appropriate. You have a trial when I think you
are damaging my interests.
DC: Fair use enters here (you can quote 10% but
not all; there's reams of law in this area).
TB: It's unequivocally the case that I can
publish a document that says "The dissertation
published here is junk."
DC: Publishing on the Web is not much different
than publishing on paper. Not identical, but
very analogous.
CL: Example of TB's "Annotated XML 1.0".
TB: There are two frames - spec at top and
commentary on the right.
DC: It created a wrinkle in our policy: we now
say this was done with permission.
Action TB: Draft a finding for deepLinking-25.
2.4 uriMediaType-9
See issue uriMediaType-9
1. uriMediaType-9: Status of negotiation with IETF?
See message from DanC.
+ Action TBL: Get a reply from the IETF on the
TAG finding.
[Ian]
DC: We said we wanted IANA to make available
stable URIs for media types. The way you ask the
IETF something is to write an Internet draft.: I
wrote to www-tag and then got Mark Baker's
attention.
[Norm]
Action DC to write draft. Deadline, 30 Sep
2.5 URIEquivalence-15
See issue URIEquivalence-15
[DanConn]
Architecture document, "2.2.1. Comparison of
identifiers" mentions URIEquivalence-15.
Suggestion: ask Martin Duerst to review section
2.2.
[ian_]
TB: Martin says you have no hope but a hard line
(see Martin's email). Whether %7e = %7E in all
cases is a slippery slope. I thought we could
retroactively assert that post-normalization
affects escapes, but I don't think we can.
DC: I want people to copy paste URIs as is, and
question any changes.
TB: I would like I18N WG to should "Always use
lower case." There's a contradiction between the
RFC and the namespaces spec.
DC: Clear to me that we need to say loudly: "If
you mean the same thing, say it the same way!":
I am willing to redraft 2.2.1.
Action DC: Redraft 2.2.1.
TB: I don't think we can sweep away apparent
contradiction with HTTP URIs. Avoid "byte" and
"binary".
DC: Use "characters".
TB: No, compare code points.
[DanConn]
If you know the characters are encoded in
US-ASCII, you can compare bytes, for example.
and you can generalize for all other character
encoding schemes, including, e.g. EBCDIC.
[ian_]
IJ: In the redraft, can we work in proposals on
URIEquivalence-15, notably re: good practice?
Action CL: I will ask Martin for suggestions for
good practice regarding URI canonicalization
issues, such as %7E v. &7e and suggested use of
lower case.
2.6 Postponed
1. httpRange-14: Need to make progress here to advance
in Arch Document.
2. RFC3023Charset-21:
1. Chris sent information to www-tag. What is
necessary to close this issue?
2. Action IJ 2002/09/26: Work CL language into
"TAG Finding: Internet Media Type
registration, consistency of use". Ping PC to
let him know (since he has some text to change
as well).
3. 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 discussions from 24 Jun TAG teleconf.
Findings in progress, architecture document
See also: findings.
1. Architecture document
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.] Sent. Awaiting reply.
2. Action TBL: 2002/07/15: Create a table of URI
properties.
2. Internet Media Type registration, consistency of
use.
+ Action PC 2002/07/08: Propose alternative
cautionary wording for finding regarding IANA
registration. Refer to "How to Register a
Media Type with IANA (for the IETF tree) "
New issues?
* Use of frags in SVG v. in XML
+ Action DC 2002/09/26: Describe this issue in
more detail for the TAG. See comments from
Chris Lilley (sent after the meeting).
__________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/08/30 20:59:56 $
Received on Friday, 30 August 2002 17:04:02 UTC