- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:53:11 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello,
The minutes of the 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference 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: 25 Nov teleconf | Next: 9 Dec
2002 teleconf
Minutes of 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference
Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details ? issues list
? www-tag archive
1. Administrative
1. Roll call: All present. SW (Chair), TBL, DC, TB,
CL, PC, NW, DO, RF, IJ (Scribe).
2. Accepted 18 Nov minutes
3. Accepted 25 Nov minutes
4. Accepted this agenda
5. Accepted draft summary of TAG work from previous
month (with changes suggested by DC and additions
from this meeting). IJ to include TB's draft
finding on URI comparison in summary.
6. Next meeting: 9 Dec 2002
1.1 Completed actions
* Action IJ: 2002/11/25: Update
rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 to indicate waiting on WSDL
WG.
* Action IJ: Remove "Status of discussions with WSA
WG about SOAP/WSDL/GET/Query strings" from agenda,
make sure that issues list whenToUseGet-7 tracks
this open state.
1.2 Meeting planning
* [NOT DISCUSSED] Next TAG ftf: 6-7 Feb 2003 in
Irvine, CA (USA)
1.3 Other business?
The TAG discussed its slide presentation from the W3C
Advisory Committee meeting.
* Action TB: Send proposed changes to SW slides to
tag@w3.org.
* Action NW: Create updated slides for XML 2002
presentation.
* Action IJ: Update SW slides with pointer to NW
slides (and refer to TB comments).
2. Technical (75min)
Possible new issues:
1. SOAP and XML internal subset
2. Binary XML
3. Metadata in URIs
4. Postponed issues
5. Arch Doc/Findings
2.1 SOAP and XML internal subset
See message from Paul Grosso
[DanCon]
yes, please; I don't want to take this up until
the XMLP WG has responded to a "don't subset
XML" request.
[Ian]
DO: I think this is an important arch issue. I
think it should have been sent earlier to XMLP
WG. But having said that, the topic of
subsetting has come up before. I'm on the record
of wanting a next generation of profiles. I
think the TAG ought to bring up this issue and
consider the arch ramifications of profiles of
XML specs.
TB: I agree with DO. The IETF's BCP says "don't
do this." For the case of SOAP, I think they
have overwhelming technical arguments for their
design choice (namely, avoid risk of denial of
service attacks). I think that in general,
subsetting XML is probably not wise for the
reasons cited by the IETF authors. There is a
recurring desire of some groups to do this; that
signal should be looked at.
[Zakim]
Timmit, you wanted to agree we should take up
issue and to suggest that original WG should be
heavily involved and/or in charge when a profile
is made of any spec.
[Ian]
TBL: I agree we should accept the issue. While
there is a WG that is responsible for this work,
I think it's important that that WG do the work.
We should not establish the precedent that one
group can profile the work of another (notably
cross-organizational boundaries). We can discuss
it, with an option to return to the XML Core WG
with a request to produce a profile.
[Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to express a preference for
having PaulG/XMLCore make a request to XMLP WG
before we accept this
[Ian]
DC: If we accept this as an issue, can we
immediately contact both WGs to ensure that they
know they are represented?: One possibility: do
this by email or in a teleconf. I would prefer
that Paul write to the XMLP WG and get their
reply on record.
NW: There's a lot of editorial work, not much
technical benefit, unclear political
ramifications of such an exercise. By
"political" I mean that it's not clear what
buy-in would be obtained from vendors and parser
authors, etc. I'm not sure that's really
"political" but it's more than purely technical.
DO: I think that Paul Grosso should ask the XMLP
WG for their rationale, and that the TAG is
interested in that reply. I believe that Chair
of XMLP WG is interested in providing
information on this topic.
PC: On the IETF BCP - does this apply when XML
used as the basis of a protocol?: TBL talks
about profiles as though they were bad; but
profiles happen all the time within W3C.
[DaveO]
I wonder if there are at least two profiles:
"non-protocol" and "protocol".
[Ian]
PC: I'm not sure that the TAG can do anything
about on group profiling (or not profiling) the
work of another group.
[DanCon]
I don't think TimBL suggested lockstep; I think
he just meant that if XMLP wants to profile XML,
the WG working on XML should get the right of
review
[Ian]
PC: There's a long history on this topic (going
back to Sep 2001, at least, see message on
xml-dist-app) regarding SOAP. I think it is
appropriate to tell Paul G to talk to the XMLP
WG. We can give him some pointers to the public
record.
TB Proposal:
1. We should officially respond to PaulG saying
that there is some history and that it would
be appropriate to direct his query to the XMLP
WG to ensure that the evidence is brought out
for review.
2. Propose TAG adopts subsetXML issue, based on
the fact that XML doesn't provide a means for
subsetting. Some people (like me) think that
it's bad to subset XML. But some groups still
want to do this, and some groups have good
reasons for doing so.
[DanCon]
hmm... I thought the subsetting XPath case was
directly relevant. the name "subsettingXML"
seems exclusive of that.
[DaveO]
Dan, what is "XML"?
[DanCon]
a language defined in the XML 1.0
recommendation, I think.
[DaveO]
Is XML=XML 1.* + namespaces + xpath + dom +
xquery + xslt?
[Norm]
DaveO: XML is http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml
[Ian]
TB: The XMLP WG has evidence that subsetting
will be sometimes necessary.: It's not
reasonable for SOAP 1.2 to wait for a revised
XML.
[Norm]
DaveO: XML++ might include namespaces, base, et.
al.
[Ian]
DO: Friendly amendment to TB's (2). Not just an
issue of subsetting XML, but rather among the
family of XML specs.
TB: Retitle as profileXML.: Change wording "XML
family of specifications"
DC: "Profiling W3C specs" would be fine.
[PaulC]
You don't conform to XPath. You conform to
XPointer or XSLT.
[Ian]
DC: Flavors of a language are evil. Sometimes
you need profiles, but there is a cost to
interoperability. Profiles are to be avoided.
RF: What you want with a profile of XML is to
make it possible to implement software.
[TBray]
http://www.textuality.com/xml/xmlSW.html
[PaulC]
I agree with Tim's amended resolution of this
item but I would like to see a clear statement
of the "XML family of specification" issue.
[Ian]
RF: General purpose servers implement HTTP
differently from specific-purpose servers. There
are limits on URIs, size of request header. Apps
need to be able to define these things on their
own. Not limits on the protocol, but limits on
the implementation of the protocol.
[PaulC]
Re XPath, I guess you could also conform to the
new DOM API + XPath.
[Ian]
TB: I agree with DC - one of the good things
about XML historically is that it's much more
option-free than other specs. Clearly this
approach is running into trouble. I've put a
stake in the ground about which specs to group
together (XML, namespaces, base) so that
profiling not necessary.
TBL: Things will break if some parsers
understand entities and others don't.
[TBray]
hmmm... sounds reasonable
[Zakim]
Timmit, you wanted to say that http example is
more -- what happens if an http server doesn't
implement HEAD?
[DanCon]
issue profilePlussesAndMinuses-NNN
issue profilesNecessaryEvil-NNN
[Ian]
PC: Wasn't this on the XML Core WG agenda at
some point?
DO: Yes, they are chartered to do this.
TB: Maybe it suffices to say to the XML Core WG
that we think this should be moved up their list
of priorities.
NW: No one I know of is chomping at the bit to
address this; seems like a lot of work, without
much promise of payoff. If we want this work
done, we should ask the Core WG.
TB: Don't phrase this as "Do XML 2.0". If we
think there's a problem here (and I think
evidence suggests there is), we could profitably
invest some time in how we get a solution. Will
be hard to disentangle tech from process issues.
DO: This issue has also come up in WSA WG.
NW: The major issues here are not technical.:
The Core WG has discussed this.
DO: What information can be conveyed here?
TB: Let's toss this out into www-tag.
NW: If we want to engage the Core WG, we should
invite Paul Grosso to a meeting where this is
discussed.
[Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to propose:
profilesNecessaryEvil-NNN
[Ian]
SW: I have concerns about our communications
with other groups.
DC: We should accept issue and PC/DO and NW
should ask the groups how they want to be
represented here.
IJ: Title of this issue?
[PaulC]
I don't want us to send an appeal to www-tag on
this front since I want the negotiatiation with
the Chairs and WGs to occur first.
[Ian]
TB: Whither and how to profile W3C
specifications in the XML Family
DC: I object to "in the XML Family"
DO: I feel strongly about "in the XML Family"
TBL: I feel that the profiling issue applies to
other issues as well.
[DanCon]
he didn't say "feel strongly"; he (DaveO)
observed that the XML family is what we've been
talking about
[Ian]
DO: I'd like to examine the issue w.r.t. the
scope of things in the XML family of specs.
TBL: If the comment is "necessary evil" then it
applies to all our specs.
CL: We have two issues (general and specific).
SW Proposed: Accept profilesNecessaryEvil-NNN as
new issue.
DO: I object.
[Chris]
I don't like it either
[Ian]
Objections: PC, CL, TB.
TB Proposed: xmlProfilesNecessaryEvil.
CL: I don't like "necessary evil"; presupposes
an outcome.
[Chris]
XMLProfilesNeeded?-nnn
[DaveO]
XMLProfiles
[Ian]
Proposed: xmlProfiles.
[TBray]
issue xmlProfiles-NNN: When, whether and how to
profile the XML family of recommendation
[Ian]
DC: Abstain.
[Chris]
like daves
[Ian]
Resolved: xmlProfiles. DC Abstains.
Action IJ: Add to issues list xmlProfiles-NNN.
TB suggests title "When, whither and how to
profile W3C specifications in the XML Family"
Action DO: Talk to XMLP WG about this new issue.
Action NW: Talk to XML Core WG about this new
issue.
2.2 Binary XML
See messages from Robin Berjon, Paul Cotton (member
only), Don Brutzman (member only)
[Ian]
For accepting: DO, DC.
Objections: TB
Abstain: NW, RF.
RF: I abstain, mostly because I wouldn't call it
XML....
TB: Exactly, if it's binary, it's not XML.
[Chris]
its not the XML serialisation format, true
[Ian]
SW Proposed: Adopt binaryXML-NNN as an issue.
Objections: TB
Abstain: NW, RF, SW, PC
[Chris]
proposed - binaryXMLInfoset
[Ian]
PC: My rationale - I'm not sure what the
community is asking for.
CL: Discussion started before I could send crisp
problem statement.
[timmit]
I would like to be on the record as to why I
would have supported this
[Ian]
Supports binaryXML-NNN: DO, TBL, DC, CL
[timmit]
I would like to take up this issue because it
has been raised by so many parties too often,
and no statment one way or the other exists
about it. The community deserves such a thing.
[Ian]
Action CL: Write up problem statement about
binary XML; send to www-tag.
TBL: Here's why I think we should take it up -
it's been raised by a lot of people (e.g.,
Web3D, who are users). The XML community has
ruled it out of scope. If the TAG's conclusion
is that it's better to do Y than binary XML,
then we should say so clearly. If the answer is
so obvious, we should state it clearly. If it's
not, then we should unearth it and deal with it.
[TBray]
considering changing my vote
[Ian]
DO: Also an issue in the Web Services
community.: I think the TAG could help out in
this area.
CL: For SVG we said "use gzip" but the mobile
folks said that wasn't good enough; they have to
store strings with whitespace preserved. They
end up having 2 copies of the data.
[timmit]
(because the DOM allows access t the original
strings)
[Ian]
TB: I am profoundly against the notion of binary
XML in general. However, having listened here,
it's apparent that it's an issue that won't go
away.: If it's a bad idea, we should say why and
tell people how to solve problems in the real
world.
SW Proposed: binaryXML-NNN as a new issue.
Objections: None.
Abstain: RF, NW, PC
Support: DC, CL, TB, DO, TBL, SW
Resolved: Accept binaryXML-NNN as a new issue.
Action IJ: Add binaryXML-NNN to issues list.
2.3 Metadata in URIs
See message from Ossi Nyk?nen.
[Ian]
DO: I'm interested in the issue of versioning
resources.: E.g., namespaces and versioning.
TB: Notion of encoding metadata in a URI is
broken. Versioning has application-specific
semantics.
[timmit]
Now RDF for metada is a good idea...
[Chris]
memories of VMS filenames with ;version in the
filename
[Ian]
CL: If we universally thing this is a bad thing
to do, we should say so loudly.
SW Proposed: Accept medataInURI-NNN?
IJ: Could be short if universal response is
"no".
Resolved: Accept issue matadataInURI-NNN with
note that TAG thinks the answer is "no" and will
explain what to do instead.
2.4 Postponed issues
1. Status of URIEquivalence-15, IRIEverywhere-27.
Relation to Character Model of the Web (chapter 4)?
See text from TimBL on URI canonicalization and
email from Martin in particular. See more comments
from Martin.
1. Action MD 2002/11/18: Write up text about
IRIEverywhere-27 for spec writers to include
in their spec.
2. Action CL 2002/11/18: Write up finding for
IRIEverywhere-27 (from TB and TBL, a/b/c), to
include MD's text.
3. Action TB 2002/11/18: Write a finding for
URIEquivalence-15 on IRI relation to URI,
different levels of equivalence. Done
2. namespaceDocument-8
1. Action NW 2002/11/18: Take a stab at
indicating pros and cons for the various
RDDL/RDF/Xlink designs arising from TB's RDDL
challenge.
3. rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
1. The Schema WG is making progress; they will
get back to us when they're done. See XML
Schema thread on this topic.
2. Action IJ: 2002/11/25: Update
rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 to indicate waiting on
WSDL WG. Done.
4. uriMediaType-9:
1. Action DC 2002/08/30: Write a draft Internet
Draft based on this finding (Deadline 2 Dec).
This action probably subsumes the action on
TBL to get a reply from the IETF on the TAG
finding. Done, TAG only.
Action DC: Point to this draft on www-tag: "A
Registry of Assignments using Ubiquitous
Technologies and Careful Policies."
2. Resolved: The TAG thanks Mark Baker for his
contributions to this draft!
5. fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in
XML.
6. xlinkScope-23 (5 minutes)
1. Action SW 2002/11/18: Organize a
special-interest teleconf for discussion of
this issue on linking. Pending; see email from
SW (TAG-only).
2.5 Findings in progress, architecture document
See also: findings.
1. Findings in progress:
1. deepLinking-25
1. TB 2002/09/09: Revise "Deep Linking" in
light of 9 Sep minutes. Status of
finding?
2. URI Comparison.
1. Resolved: Link to TB's draft finding from
findings page. Action IJ: Link to this
from findings page.
2. 7 Nov 2002 Arch Doc
1. Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3 based
on resolutions of 18 Nov 2002 ftf meeting.
2. Action DC 2002/11/04: Review "Meaning" to see
if there's any part of self-describing Web for
the arch doc. Done.
3. Complete review of TBs proposed principles
CP9, CP10 and CP11
__________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs, for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/12/03 00:52:25 $
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 19:53:13 UTC