W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

[Minutes] 1 July TAG teleconf (SOAP last call, xlinkScope-23, Arch Doc and httpRange-14)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 18:45:05 -0400
Message-ID: <3D20DB71.3020805@w3.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org


Minutes from the 1 July 2002 TAG teleconf are available
at HTML [1] and text below.

  - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/07/01-tag-summary

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

    W3C | TAG | Previous: 24 Jun | Next: 8 July

            Minutes for 1 July 2002 TAG teleconference

    Nearby: Teleconference details  issues list  www-tag

1. Administrative (15min)

     1. Confirm scribe: IJ
     2. Roll call: TBL, CL, SW, RF, IJ. Regrets: DO, PC,
        TB, NW, DC
     3. Accept this agenda
     4. Next meeting: 8 July. Regrets: TBL
     5. Accepted 24 June minutes
     6. Confirmed status of completed actions

  1.2 Completed actions?

     1. IJ: Ask TBL to take ownership of issue
        xlinkScope-23. Done. Refer to TimBL proposal for
        when to use XLink.
     2. IJ: Ask SW to send a thank-you to the XMLP WG
        regarding SOAP/GET. See their email to TAG
        regarding MIME types.
     3. IJ: Ask SW to write thank-you to XMLP WG. See
        Stuart's email to XMLP WG Chair.

2. Technical

  1. Review SOAP in last call?
  2. xlinkScope-23
  3. Arch Document / httpRange-14

2.1 Review SOAP in last call?

SW: The XMLP WG has asked the TAG whether they will
review the SOAP 1.0 specification in last call.

RF, SW: SOAP 1.2 is not sufficiently architectural in
scope (in the way the CharMod spec was).

Resolved: The TAG does not intend to commit to a
complete review of the last call document. The XMLP WG
should indicate whether there is a particular issue
having architectural scope they want us to look at.

Action SW: Respond to XMLP WG on behalf of TAG.

2.2 xlinkScope-23

    Proposal from TBL. In particular, "You should use xlink
    whenever your application is one of hypertext linking,
    as xlink functionality such as power to control user
    interface behavior on link traversal is useful and
    should be implemented in a standard way to allow

      I agree with him about that use of hypertext

      RF: I never understood why xlink:href existed. I
      just use "href" myself.

      I am totally amazed at people claiming that
      human-understandable terms mean something for
      attribute values
      You cannot assume that class, id, href etc
      happen to mean something!!
      href *in the xlink namespace* yes

      RF: In the actual documents used by people
      across a wide range of XML, "href" is
      consistently used to contain a URI or URI
      reference." So putting "xlink:href", while it
      makes us semantically clean in terms of the XML
      Processing model, the reality is that it doesn't
      make any difference.
      SW: In order for a language to make use of
      xlink:href, what does it have to import?
      CL: You must declare xlink namspace and use
      namespace mechanism.

      <thermostat cref="19C" href="37C"/>

      Classic example.

      Stupid example. Try using that in practice and
      users will be upset.

      As a concrete example - take an svg file, and
      declare the "xlink" prefix to a different URL
      not the XLink one. Your links stops working/
      wheras if you declare xmlns:toto fr the XLink
      namespace URI, it works of course

      TBL: If you aren't mixing languages, a namespace
      defines both syntax and semantics. When you
      dereference a namespace identifiers, you only
      get the syntactic bit back.

      It's like assuming that an attribute called id
      is of type ID. It isn't.

      TBL: When you mix namespaces, it works with RDF
      but not XML.

      <suit style="double breasted:/>
      <social class="proletariat"/>

      TBL: With namespaces, if attribute name is not
      namespace qualified, the attribute is in the
      element partition on that namespace.
      SW: The meaning is scoped by the element that
      contains it.
      CL: And if you find same (unqualified) attrib
      name on another element, can't say anything
      about relationship to other (unqualified) attrib
      RF: I understand the theory, but the practice is
      that meaning is how it's used.
      TBL: Is there software that looks a "href" in
      generic XML and assumes the value is a URI?
      RF: I don't know.

      Thats an interesting question, does the element
      partition have any effect on a namespace
      qualified name

      RF: I think xlink is not limited to hypertext
      references; it defines relationships in general.
      TBL: some questions: (1) Should you bother to
      use xlink:href, or just invent your own href?
      (2) If you use a reference but not a hypertext
      reference, should you use xlink:href?
      IJ: Raises the question of the definition of
      "link" (part of the architecture document). I
      think link will not be a useful term; context is
      everything. Too many types of links.
      TBL: When we observe that we need the term
      "link", then we can consider using it.
      CL: I think there is a need to identify things
      that are links: associations that make something
      part of a whole. There are cases when URIs are
      just use as disambiguating ids, and these aren't
      really links. Ultimately the question is whether
      W3C puts itself behind XLink (for XML grammars).
      SW: This is a piece of the mixed language issue.
      CL: Yes, you need to do actual web pages, not
      just backend stuff.
      TBL: In the XML Signature world: Take a piece of
      content, sign it, transmit it, and unsign in
      another context - this is a function of the
      target specification. With RDF, you can write
      down the rules of what happens when you mix
      statements (meaning of each statement is
      defined). So within XML, we can't do anything
      generic. We can talk about special domains
      (e.g., 2 dimensional graphical rendering and how
      to mix XHTML, MathML, etc.).

No resolution.

2.3 Architecture document / httpRange-14

Resolved: Publish 1 July draft of arch document.

Action IJ: Publish, asking in particular for input on
issue httpRange-14.

1. ACTION IJ 2002/03/18: Integrate/combine one-page
   summaries (Revised 1 July)
2. ACTION TBL 2002/05/05: Negotiate more of IJ time
   for arch doc
3. ACTION RF 2002/06/24: Write a paragraph on
   technical and political aspects of URIs and URI


      Disagreement over "According to [RFC2396] a
      resource is "anything that has identity." A
      resource is part of the Web when there is a URI
      that identifies it."
      TBL: Should be URI Reference. Otherwise you
      can't refer to some resources.
      RF: We are digging a hole for ourselves by
      saying that abs URis with frag ids define a new
      RF: URIs point to resources; frag ids are
      client-side indirect references.
      TBL: In RDF, there's another indirection - the
      frag id is not part of a resource but is about
      the thing described by the RDF. I have said many
      times that the phrase "fragment identifier" is a
      mistake. The meaning is completely
      IJ: Are there two self-consistent models here?
      Which one has advantages?
      TBL: Yes, I think you could produce two
      consistent models.
      SW: Seem to be two concepts - identification
      (speak about it) and dereferencing (get it). Are
      we conflating those two notions? Would ad-hoc
      time on the phone help?

3. Postponed

     1. httpRange-14: Need to make progress here to advance
        in Arch Document.
     2. Internet Media Type registration, consistency of
          1. ACTION DC: research the bug in the svg
             diagram. There are two votes to remove the
             diagram (DC and TB).
          2. ACTION NW 2002/06/24: Produce PNG version of
             image as well.
     3. uriMediaType-9: Status of negotiation with IETF?
        See message from DanC.
        TBL: Now there is an RFC for URNs. Sounds like IETF
        is moving towards URNs and aren't interested in
        using URIs for media types
     4. Qnames as identifiers
          1. Action NW 2002/06/24: Follow up on Rick
             Jelliffe comments/proposal.
     5. Consistency of Formatting Property Names, Values,
        and Semantics
          1. Status of discussion about this finding?
     6. Status of URIEquivalence-15. Relation to Character
        Model of the Web (chapter 4)? See text from TimBL
        on URI canonicalization and email from Martin in
     7. RFC3023Charset-21
           + ACTION CL 2002/6/03: Write up the issue in the
             next day or so. Done (tag only)
     8. Status of discussions with WSA WG about
        SOAP/WSDL/GET/Query strings?
           + ACTION DC 2002/06/10: Send note to WSA WG
             expressing concern about normative binding for
           + 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.
           + Have we closed issue whenToUseGet-7
     9. If we get here: namespaceDocument-8
    10. augmentedInfoset-22
          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.
             Done (email to Schema WG).

   3.1 New issues?

     1. Bad practice: Overriding HTTP content-type with a
        URI reference.See email from TBL.

     Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
     Last modified: $Date: 2002/07/01 22:34:28 $
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 18:47:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:52 UTC