[Minutes] 9 Dec 2002 TAG teleconf (uriMediaType-9, namespaceDocument-8, xmlProfiles-29)


HTML minutes [1] available for the 9 Dec 2002 TAG teleconf;
text is below. The text version does not have URIs in it.

  _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/09-tag-summary

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


    W3C | TAG | Previous: 2 Dec teleconf | Next: 16 Dec
    2002 teleconf

            Minutes of 9 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference

    Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details ? issues
    list ? www-tag archive

1. Administrative

     1. Roll call: SW (Chair), TBL (Scribe), DO, DC, CL,
        NW (also scribed), PC, IJ. Regrets: TB, RF.
     2. Accepted 2 Dec minutes with correction that DC
        action was to point tag, not www-tag to doc for
     3. Accepted this agenda
     4. Next meeting: 16 Dec 2002
     5. Following meeting: 6 Jan 2003

   1.1 Completed actions

      * Action TB: Send proposed changes to SW slides to
      * Action NW: Create updated slides for XML 2002
      * Action IJ: Update SW slides with pointer to NW
        slides (and refer to TB comments).
      * Action IJ: 2002/11/25: Update
        rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 to indicate waiting on
        WSDL WG.

   1.2 Meeting planning

      * Next TAG ftf: 6-7 Feb 2003 in Irvine, CA (USA)
        [Not discussed]
      * SW: I am still setting up xlink meeting.
        Action SW: Contact the Hypertext Coordination
        group, Vincent Quint chair, as part of organizing

2. Technical

     1. uriMediaType-9
     2. namespaceDocument-8
     3. xmlProfiles-29

   2.1 uriMediaType-9

    IJ notes that TBL did not minute who said what in
    some of what follows.
     1. uriMediaType-9:
          1. Action DC 2002/12.02: Point to this draft on
             www-tag: "A Registry of Assignments using
             Ubiquitous Technologies and Careful


           Dan: I got endorsement of this from Tim Bray
           and Norm W.
           One question is, publish in TAG's name?
           A TAG finding reference is missing
           Should one bring up with IETF-W#C meeting
           first? No, March is too long
           I propose that the TAG adopt this in being
           co-author with Mark darft-w3c-registries*
           Note that darft-w3c is a possibility since
           last IETF-W3C telcon.
           Anyone want to discuss, object, etc?
           RESOLVED: The TAG adopts A Registry of
           Assignments using Ubiquitous Technologies and
           Careful Policies as suitable for publication
           as draft-w3c*
           Stuart: Thanks to Dan and to Mark B
           Dan: One thing to discuss:
           This came up under iss 9, the idea of URIs for
           media typed.

           TBL: "Media type document"

           If we follow this, we will probably end up
           with a URI for text/html with no #
           TimBL: This is OK if we really can just treat
           it as a URI for a media type document, not for
           an abstract concept.
           In principle.

    Chris arrives.

   2.2 namespaceDocument-8

     1. 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.
               1. RDDL Proposal from Tim Bray.
               2. RDDL Proposal from Chris Wilper


           stu: I haven't seen many responses to Tim
           Bray's challenge

           http://www.w3.org/2002/11/rddl/ex1.xml <-
           ^timbl's proposal, I think

           TimBL: I had one but forgot to send it.

           CL: What happens if no satisfactory replies to

           Paul: I have been talking to a lot of people
           about this, and I really wonder about whether
           we are right to look for just one format.

           IJ: I think the goal was to suggest one
           approach, not the only approach. The goal of
           this effort was to avoid saying "do this"
           without providing any example of how.

           TBL: The Web wasn't designed like that, or we
           would still have HTML 0.9. Should we have many
           posisbilities, and guidelines about what
           should be there?
           Ian: My understadning was that we are not
           proposing *the* solution but *one* solution -
           to show there is one which works. See minutes
           of 12 Feb 2002 meeting: "Resolution is
           incomplete. Consensus points from 12 Feb ftf
           meeting are:

          1. Namespace URIs should be dereferencable (to
             find useful explanatory material).
          2. The TAG has not yet reached consensus on the
             nature of the material at the end of a
             namespace URI. The TAG discussed the value
             of human readable materials, schemas, and
             indirections to useful adjuncts."

           Chris: Saying it is human readable is easy,
           and if we don't need it to be machine

           IJ: We did say it should be machine

           folks should feel free to use IRC as a
           parallel channel, as far as I'm concerned.

           Chris: ... then you don't need much more.
           Norm: I didn't think we were defining *the*
           format, but we were defining a really good
           I thought our excercise was to produce a good
           one, but not insist.

           But we did not settle on only one image format
           e.g. GIF or else we would have never been able
           to permit the usuage of JPEG and SVG.

           DC: RDDL is a distraction. It suggests that
           XHTML, RDF, and XML Schema don't get the job

           TimBL: I think there is something to be gained
           from a standard here to stop grag.

           DanCon, you wanted to say that XHTML, RDF, and
           XML Schema already work fine; RDDL is a

           DanC: I think a good appraoch to stick an xml
           schema there and an html document.

           Chris disagreed with DanC

           Paul: It is a tradeoff - if we had
           standardized on GIF would we never had had
           DavidO: I was always unhappy with saying there
           should be a document there. This gets confused
           with what it is. Saying that xml schema would
           be a good thing there IMHO is a bad thing. If
           we can't get to resolution for what the best
           format is, then I would prefer us to say there
           should NOT be a document available.

           gee... what's the best format for images? JPEG
           or SVG? surely it depends on the image, no,

           Chris; I was not suggetsing that RDDL should b
           the *one true* format. As I said, if
           human-readable is all we want, then we have no

           Dan, this is an argument we had almost a year

           As for putting a schema there, clearly that
           would [scribe fails to catch the logic of
           Chris' argument]

           TBL: Are you saying that putting a scheme
           there is bad?
           CL: Yes.

           CL: I am saying that having something which
           sits there and points to it vastly better than
           content negotiating.

           I disagree.

           DO agrees with CL

           TimMIT, you wanted to respond to PaulC re SVG

           we have not decided ANYTHING, actually. why is
           anybody surprised that the discussion

           We have consensus minuted at earlier meetings.
           I am surprised.

           "Resolved: The point about URIs should have
           dereferencable material at their end applies
           to namespaces."
           -- http://www.w3.org/2002/02/12-tagmem-irc

           Tim: I thought we had come to a consensus that
           itis good to have a document , and that human
           readable is useful and machine readable are
           Ian: There was never any "must". No one
           suggested that asingle format will meet all
           [The TAG attempts to establish what we had
           already agreed]

           From xml namespaces spec, 2:
           "It is not a goal that it be directly usable
           for retrieval of a schema (if any exists). An
           example of a syntax that is designed with
           these goals in mind is that for Uniform
           Resource Names [RFC2141]. However, it should
           be noted that ordinary URLs can be managed in
           such a way as to achieve these same goals."

           DO: I understood: we were going to come up
           with a format, and RDDL was a good start, but
           my assumption was that we would have a
           standard before we recommended putting
           anything there.

           My problem is with people saying "the format"
           instead of "a format" or "an example format".

           Ian: David, do you need one single format, or
           a general receommendation of one among
           DO: Either

           My problem is any work that suggests sticking
           an XML schema or RDF schema there isn't OK
           will get an objection from me.

           IJ: I just want to be sure nobody expects it
           to be "the format".

           any work that suggests sticking an XML schema
           or RDF schema there isn't OK will get an
           objection from me.

           Chris: We say that it meeets the criteria,
           which are not well-defined.

           I will object to XML Schema being OK.

           PaulC: We should call it "only an example
           DO: Do you think that the issue about which
           vocabulary should use HTML should be a "best
           TimBL: URIs are the only thing we insist on
           [for the Web]. We don't insist on any data
           Paul: Sounds like we are design this like
           everything else on the web, that you can use
           something else if you want to.
           Stu: TimBray not being here may be a problem.
           He and Jonathan had been working on the
           document. I still find there is a problem with
           ambiguity - namespace vs namespace document. I
           can see a solution here having a Namespace
           Docuement being identfied, and that indirectly
           identifying a namespace.

           SW, I share your concern.

           Norm: I never thought that RDDL would be part
           of the namespace rec. I thought we would
           publish it as a separate finding.
           Chris: me too.
           TimBL: me too
           DOl: I mean 'effectively" chaneg the namespace
           rec, not actually.
           Ian: I hoped that if the NS rec were revised,
           then it would be more explicit about it being
           OK or good to put a document there. It is
           easier to incorporatea tag finding into a
           namespaces revision if the language is clearer
           about utility of putting something at the end
           of a namespaces URI; it's easier to read one
           doc instead of 2.
           timbL: I agree.
           SKW: Any change of TAG attitude here?
           Norm: Not without TimBray

    SKW: I will update TimBray on our discussion.

   2.3 xmlProfiles-29

     1. xmlProfiles-29
          1. Action DO 2002/12/02: Talk to XMLP WG about
             this new issue.
          2. Action NW 2002/12/09: Talk to XML Core WG
             about this new issue


           Chris: people have been discussing entities.
           TimBray sugegsted removing external entities
           but it wasn't clear MathML would be helped.

           [Discussion about entities/MathML]

           DanC: I know people on MathML who di dnot want
           to use entities ... they had a <mchar
           name="..."/> before but it went away. See
           email from DanC on this topic.

           Norm: The i18n folks pushed back on mchar as
           yet another way

           See email from David Carlisle, on why mchar
           went away.

           TimBL: If schema allowed one to define
           character entities?
           DanC: Why not use elements?
           ____? Can't use em in attributes.
           Norm: Substring XML discussion was driven by
           XMLP group profiling out "internal subsets".
           DanC: round tripping.
           ... is something was serialized with &foo; do
           you have to write it out like that?

           Stuart, you wanted to ask about background
           from XMLP

           SKW: The XMLP -- do we need to respond to
           DO: We could say, Thanks - good rationale.
           ACTION SW: Thanks XMLP WG

           SKU: Are we on XML Core WG ground here?
           DaveO: don't understand the question about
           being in scope for XML core. It is in scope as
           I understand their charter under examining
           possible future version.


           Norm; I think we should invide Paul Grosso to
           a TAG meeting.
           PaulC: I agree. People have been using
           "profile" and 'subsetting" in confusing ways.

           CL: I agree with PaulC, some people have been
           thinking that 2.0 would be smaller and others
           that it would be larger. It doesn't say
           anything explicit in the charter about
           profiling or a subset. But equally, it says
           they could do a 2.0 if they think it's
           advisable. Perhaps, they're telling us they
           think it's inadvisable: We should try to herd
           this discussion in useful directions.
           PC: Several people have put words in Paul
           Grosso's mouth along the lines of trying to
           decide what the boundaries are. We could do it
           by email, or here.
           CL: I think it would be very useful.
           SW: I'd be happy to invite Paul Grosso. We
           probably need to show some leadership in
           formulating what the issue is
           DaveO: I think the TAG should make up it's
           mind about what it thinks of
           profiling/subsetting, etc. For example, if the
           Core WG says it's a sucky idea, that might be
           one response, then we should think about
           whether we would agree or disagree with that.
           I don't want to couple what the TAG thinks
           about this issue with what the Core WG thinks.
           SW: Ahead or in parallel with meeting with

           That was brutely Norm volunteering to take the
           "high ground".

           ACTION NW: Write up a first draft of the TAG
           ACTION SW: Invite Paul Grosso to a future

   2.1 Postponed

     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.
        CL: Both actions pending.
     2. binaryXML-30
          1. Action CL 2002/12/02: Write up problem
             statement about binary XML; send to www-tag.
     3. fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in
     4. 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).

   2.2 Findings in progress, architecture document

    See also: findings.
     1. Findings in progress:
          1. deepLinking-25
               1. Action TB 2002/09/09: Revise "Deep
                  Linking" in light of 9 Sep minutes.
          2. URIEquivalence-15
               1. Completed Action IJ 2002/1202: Action
                  IJ: Link to TB's "URI Comparison" from
                  findings page.
     2. 6 Dec 2002 Editor's Draft of Arch Doc (new):
        IJ: Is it ok for me to publish Editor's Drafts at
        will? TAG agrees to publish early, often.
        CL: Be sure to highlight any controversial
        changes in Editor's Drafts.
          1. Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3
             based on resolutions of 18 Nov 2002 ftf
          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: 2002/12/09 23:01:25 $

Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 18:08:08 UTC