- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:15:33 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello,
An HTML version of the minutes [1] is available,
quoted as text below.
- Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/17-tag-summary
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
1. Administrative
1. Roll call: All present - Tim Berners-Lee, Tim Bray, Dan
Connolly, Paul Cotton, Roy Fielding, Chris Lilley, David
Orchard, Norm Walsh, Stuart Williams, Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
2. Next meeting: 24 June. Regrets: DC and TBL.
3. Accepted 10 June minutes
4. Confirmed status of completed actions
1.2 Completed actions?
* IJ: Add to issue namespaceDocument-8 as
background links to discussion by James Clark
(see email from TB).
* IJ: Update and publish "URIs, Addressability, and
the use of HTTP GET". Done.
* NW: 2002/6/03: Tell I18N WG that TAG has agreed
to comments from CL with amendments from NW.
(Done)
* NW 2002/05/20: Draft a finding for
formattingProperties-19 (Done)
* RF 2002/06/10: Send thank you note to XMLP WG.
2. Technical
1. New issues:
1. Augmented infosets, PSVI
2. Scope of Xlink
2. Findings in progress
1. TAG Finding: Consistency of Formatting
Property Names, Values, and Semantics
2. QNames as Identifiers
3. Internet Media Type registration,
consistency of use
3. Postponed
2.1 New issues?
2.1.1 Augmented infosets, PSVI
Source: email from TB. Accepted as
augmentedInfoset-22.
Action IJ: Add to issues list.
[Ian]
TB: What was bothering me was that augmented
info sets could only come about through schema
validation (namely just one).
[DanCon]
I 2nd the proposal to accept this issue. I'm
not sure exactly what it is or what we'll do
about it, but it's clear that doing something
is worthwhile.
[Ian]
TB: That strikes me as wrong. It may be worth
specifying type-augmented infoset in
abstract/generic terms. See email from Noah.
[DanCon]
"(b) Applications that depend on a PSVI now
require a very complex,
heavy-weight schema validation process, rather
than a relatively simple
parsing process." -- clark,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/20
02Jun/0119.html. Hear hear.
[Ian]
CL: Seems like same as using DTD to get
information and using it to enforce validity?
TB: Seems that PSVI repeats some mistakes DTDs
made (conflation of two orthogonal issues).
PC: Why is this a TAG issue and not to be
dealt with in Schema/Query WG?
[DanCon]
A reservation: it's not clear how this is "web
architecture" as opposed to 2nd-guessing a
WG's decisions. But though it's not clearly a
web-architecture issue, it is a W3C
architecture issue, in that it affects many
WGs.
[Ian]
TB: It seems to me that it cuts across work.
Maybe all the TAG needs to do is to raise this
as an issue and ask the appropriate group to
work on it. The important arch principle here
is "where do types come from?" Types only
being meaningful in context of PSVI is
problematic, I think.
DC: I share PC's concern about TAG
second-guessing other WG's work. It's clearly
W3C architecture if not Web architecture. If
we let each WG optimize locally, we may not
get a global optimization. I support accepting
this as an issue.
[Roy]
[aside] Is there an XML processing
architecture WG?
[Ian]
NW: I share some of PC's concern as well. I'm
not certain that some WGs will look at this at
a broad enough level. I second supporting
accepting this issue.
SW: Can we take this to XML Core?
PC: No. There is broad representation in this
area. There are several groups already working
together on this. (E.g., schema, query,
xforms, ...)
TB: I read the query data model piece. It
talks about the PSVI and clearly creates the
impression in the reader's mind that the only
way to get type info is through a w3c schema
parser. I think that's wrong.
PC: I'm reluctant to have the TAG take up an
issue that questions some of the rationale why
the Schema WG was created. E.g., schema
charter accepted to model DTD functionality.
TB: It is my opinion that annotating infosets
through types is a good idea. But there are
other ways through schema validation. And that
annotating with default values is almost
always a mistake. [Scribe would like review of
this statemetn.]
[DanCon]
Indeed, the schema WG charter was accepted 4
years ago. i.e. we have 4 years of experience
since then.
[Ian]
DO: Maybe what PC is hearing is that this is
an opportunity for the TAG to live up to one
perceived function - technical coordination
and expertise. I hear TB saying infoset
augmentation is more general than schema
validation.
PC: The XML Activity made an explicit decision
that any WG could augment the infoset since
the Core WG didn't want to do this as a
critical work item. A decision was made to
delegate to the Schema WG to do this. Some
pieces of thread have not been addressed yet.
I think TB has not addressed Schema WG as an
individual. If you are going to define
user-defined operators, the type system can't
be completely pluggable. Otherwise query will
have to be so flexible that we won't get it
done.
[DanCon]
hmm... paul's point that we should persue the
matter with the WG 1st... I could live with
that.
[Chris]
yes, that is the principle we use as the first
filter
[Ian]
RF: I think the Schema WG has approached the
issue from the perspective of schemas. TB
wants to approach from the perspective of the
Infoset. Why is it necessary to get Schema
WG's permission here?
TB: I think that there are a bunch of issues
here well worth discussing: type-augmented
infosets (outside of query), and would be
excellent to do this in an interoperable
manner. Granted, there should be a liaison
with the Schema WG.
[Roy]
I think TB has identified a gap in the
architecture. So the real question is who
should be asked to address/fill the gap?
[Ian]
TB: We don't know what they think yet. I
remain convinced that this is an issue for the
TAG.
CL: How does this process differ from a
charter proposal? I agree with TB's point
about augmention-broader-than-schema. When
HTML people wanted to use XLink, they wanted
to through augmention rather than through
syntax.
[DaveO]
CL said my point
[Ian]
CL: But I also understand PC's point that
people should talk to existing WGs where this
is in scope. What would more discussion in the
TAG add?
[DanCon]
I learned quite a bit about XML schema
requirements around PSVI stuff in an
xmlschema-dev thread.
[Ian]
TB: We could ascertain whether there are apt
to be infoset augmentation use cases outside
of schema. And is it an arch principle that
there should be a std way to do infoset
augmentation and to exchange such
augmentations (i.e., syntax). And another
principle - is it sufficient for Query WG to
rely on current version of augmentations as
proposed by Schema WG.
PC: One of the comments made at the processing
model Workshop: fallacy in the augmentation
design was that everyone who wishes to augment
assumes they are last. Question about whether
XML Activity will take up this challenge was
recently put to the AC.
[DanCon]
I don't think this issue is exactly what was
discussed at the xml processing model workshop
[Ian]
TBL: Just because a WG is going to work in an
area doesn't mean that TAG discussion is
inappropriate in that area.: I think it's
still useful for the TAG to sync up with WGs
(especially early, when a WG may have
different ideas about architecture).
[Ian]
DO: If PC's thesis is correct (some work done
in W3C about processing) then we could say
"watch this group to see what they do."
[TBray]
Query datamodel says:
The data model is defined in terms of the [XML
Information Set] after XML Schema validity
assessment. XML Schema validity assessment is
the process of assessing an XML element
information item with respect to an XML Schema
and augmenting it and some or all of its
descendants with properties that provide
information about validity and type
assignment. The result of schema validity
assessment is an augmented Infoset, known as
the Post Schema-Validation Infos
[TBray]
I have grave arch concerns with this assertion
[Ian]
DO: I don't think we want to have issues about
tracking work of other groups to see if they
are doing the right thing.
SW: What about having a round of discussions
with Henry Thompson and others?
PC: That's my point - discussion has not been
sufficient yet.
DC: I'm happy to ask the XML Schema WG to do a
version that has PSVI separate from
validation. Maybe they would do this. They are
collecting requirements. I'd still rather it
be an issue for us anyway.
[timbl]
Sounds as though if there is this much
discussion about it, then it may be an issue.
[Ian]
Action DC: Talk to XML Schema WG about PSVI.
Report to tag, who expects to decide whether
to add as an issue next week.
2.1.2 Scope of Xlink?
Source: email from TBL. Accepted as xlinkScope-23.
Action IJ: Add to issues list.
[DaveO]
I have some info background on xlink
discussions..
[Ian]
TBL: I thought that "hlink" was for GUI
semantics. Should RDF be used or schema
annotations?
[Roy]
xlink:href --> xmlns supported. Is that okay?
[Chris]
Yes, it implies namespace support. xlink is
*not* only for hyperlinks
[timbl]
Should xlink be required for
(a) all URI parameters
(b) all URI params pointing to documents which
are hyperlinked fr om this one
(c) nothing it is optional
(d) none fo the above
(e) all the above
[Ian]
CL: xlink is not just for hyperlinks. It's
chartered to support replaced content (like
images).
TBL: I would include image embedding as part
of (my concept of) hypertext.
[Ian]
CL: Some W3C WGs coming up with other
mechanisms that rely on PSVI and hence Schema.
The notion of having a cell phone using a
schema strikes me as "not entirely thought
through."
DO: Why should we look at this as an issue
given what the charter of xlink says?
[Chris]
Using a schema "to find out where the links
are", especially since it needs a link to get
the schema.
[Ian]
DO: Shouldn't people talk to the WGs
responsible for these technologies?
[DanCon]
Interesting... hyperlinking only... SVG went
and used it for symbol references, which isn't
hyperlinking, is it?
[Ian]
RF: W3C has to do a better job of setting reqs
on its specifications. When it started, xlink
was meant to be general links on the Web. If
only for hyperlinks, that's confusing.
[Chris]
Depending on whose definitions of 'hyperlink'
you use
[Ian]
TBL: People's terminology varies (a source of
confusion) and that becomes a TAG issue.
[DanCon]
Again, it seems there's plenty here to justify
the time of the TAG to discuss this issue.
[Ian]
NW: The xlink spec seems to have all the
necessary machinery to provide roles for fully
generalized linking. I thought that all links
would be based on xlink.
TBL: (Clarification) - what do you mean by a
link? Does a reference to a piece of a BNF
expression in a speech grammar be a link?
NW: Yes - if you point from here to there, use
an xlink.
[DanCon]
Order? would the chair please ask if anybody
wants this to *not* be a TAG issue?
[Chris]
Agree it should be a TAG issue
[Ian]
TB: I propose we accept this as an issue -
domain of application of xlink. Are parts
mandatory? Xlink represents a lot of work and
agony. Would it help if TAG made
recommendations? I think that's worth an
issue.
DO, PC: Objections to making this a TAG issue.
DO: I observe that one of the fundamental
issues that came up on xlink charter
discussions was - when you start doing more
general hyperlinking, you want to give the
author a better understanding of processing
model when link occurs. I thought xlink was
not meant to be used for all linking (e.g.,
some from database community not satisfied
with that).
[Ian]
PC: +1 to DO's comments.
TB: I'm uncomfortable with history determining
(mechanically) whether we decide to accept
arch issues.
[timbl]
The XLINK spec IMHO is made for GUI links.
[ian_]
TBL: The architecure is "You shall use URIs."
not "You shall use xlink". If you try to use
Xlinks for semantics, I'd find that RDF is
more generic - I wouldn't force people to use
RDF for human-readable documents.
[Roy]
xlink covers all explicit links. There are
also implicit links and externally-defined
links that are not covered.
[DanCon]
I've had lots of discussions where, 2/3rds of
the way thru, folks discovered they had
different ideas about what "link" or
"hyperlink" or "reference" meant. I think the
TAG could save W3C WG's a lot of time by
spending some time discussing this stuff.
hmm... interesting policy question... do we
need consensus to accept an issue? or just
majority?
[Chris]
Having it added as an Issue does have some
politicaly overtones, yes
[ian_]
IJ: For me, issues list is just a tool. What
do people think are other implications of
putting on the issues list?
TBL: Right, useful to assign issue number to
get work done. Even if we make a quick
resolution. Nomenclature consensus is already
valuable.
[TBray]
BTW I think I agree with DaveO on the
appropriate use of xlink
[Chris]
Of course, we could always issue a finding
that "there is no problem". Issue does not
equate to "clearly broken"
[ian_]
TBL: Just pointing out what people meant by
"hypertext links" is time well-spent.
[DanCon]
From TAG charter: "# By a majority vote, the
TAG must agree to consider an issue as having
sufficient breadth and technical impact to
warrant its consideration." We're done with
this one. This is an issue.
[TBray]
I don't agree that issue ==> finding
[Norm]
Nor do i
[ian_]
DO: I would drop my concern if we get clear
view of what "issue mean".
DC: Our charter says "Majority vote" to accept
issues.
[DanCon]
Indeed, we don't owe a finding on every issue.
we owe a decision that we're done with an
issue. our decision could be "well, we don't
care anymore."
[Roy]
Agreed
[ian_]
IJ: Dispositions may vary.
2.2 Findings in progress, architecture document
See also: findings.
2.2.1 "TAG Finding: Consistency of Formatting Property
Names, Values, and Semantics"
Resolved: Publish "TAG Finding: Consistency of
Formatting Property Names, Values, and Semantics"
(formattingProperties-19).
Action NW 2002/05/20: Find out source of issue from
CSS WG. Done.
CL: Once Steve Zilles stopped prodding people, people
stopped thinking about harmonization. SVG WG going
down that path, too.
Action NW: Call for initial review on www-tag of this
finding.
2.2.2 QNames as Identifiers
Resolved: Announce on www-tag one week review of
QNames as Identifiers (qnameAsId-18).
ACTION NW 2002/06/10: Revise finding by adding
examples. Done.
Action NW: Call for one-week review on www-tag of
this finding. TAG expects to confirm completion next
week.
TBL: I have the feeling that the finding on qnames is
different from other findings. "There's this problem
and it won't go away." [Without saying "It will go
away if you do this.]
[Ian]
TBL: It's useful to note that (a) this is a
hole in the architecture and (b) we are not
patching it over.
DC: I think that the document already says
that.
TBL: The hole is that you can't tell when
something is a qname.
[TBray]
What TimBL is saying is "you could imagine a
syntactic signal that would tell you when
something was a qname"
[ian_]
DC: Changing XML would not fix the hole. The
primary use is in XPath. The only thing that
would fix it is to never do microparsing in
attribute values or other content.
[Norm]
Nothing short of a new markup character can
fix this
[ian_]
TB: Should status section say this?
[DanCon]
"the table of contents"?
[ian_]
TBL: What about TOC for "holes".
IJ: I have started to do this in the arch
document: create sections entitled "Design
weakness".
2.2.3 Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use
ACTION DC: research the bug in the svg diagram. There
are two votes to remove the diagram (DC and TB).
.[ian_]
DC: I researched the bug. The bug was smaller
than expected. MD said lacked context, but not
more serious bug.
As it sits, the text around link to diagram
doesn't set the right context. Nobody but TBL
said they would miss the diagram.
[Chris]
The diagram could of course be *revised* not
removed. People have no issue with a correct
diagram, surely
[ian_]
TB: So (a) nuke diagram or (b) change text to
fix context.
DC: I18N folks would like it anyway.
[DanCon]
I propose: (a) cut the diagram out of our
finding, (b) I notify the I18N WG that timbl
has this nifty diagram they might want to use.
[No resolution]
1. Accept suggestion from Graham Klyne?
2. Any action on dissent from Joseph Reagle?
[ian_]
TB: People are worried that requiring IETF
stuff will create bureaucratic delays.
[Chris]
We are not requiring them to wait until its
published as an RFC, just to submit the
registration, yes? (See SOAP 1.2 application).
[Roy]
That's my experience as well with IETF WG
specs.
[ian_]
TBL: Our experience with speech grammars makes
me more adamant that the full info required to
register mime type should be appendix to spec.
That gets more attention. You have to not only
show us the language, but exactly what you
understand from the fact that you get the mime
type. There are all kinds of last-minute
tweaks in mime type application since no
review of it.
CL: I think that there's a circular dependency
here (use mime types, get implementation
experience (which requires a mime type...))).
TB: I think the issue is real - circular
dependency.
CL: I am in favor of proposal to include an
appendix that has the mime registration
(developed in parallel with the spec).
PC: If a WG wishes to skip CR, mime type
registration necessary earlier. Why is direct
inclusion necessary, however? Why not link
normatively to another document?
TBL: Because the registration process is not a
standards process. A Recommendation should not
rely on something if it doesn't have a similar
level of review.
[DanCon]
may I answer?
[ian_]
PC: How do we engage the existing IETF process
to define the mime type? Do we send them the
entire spec?
DC: Copy materials relevant to registration
from spec (appendix) into an internet draft.
PC: But there's risk of getting out of sync.
What to do in that case?
TBL: They can't get out of sync. Every time
you change you change the rec track doc, you
change the Internet draft. And we don't allow
internet draft to change unless w3c spec has
changed.
SW: The internet draft doesn't stay one
forever, it becomes an RFC at some point.
RF: Depends on whether informational rfc, or
just a form,... The confusion on the mailing
list is whether there is some ordering
involved. There isn't. There is a separate
process in IETF land, where there is cut and
paste from w3c spec->IETF land.
[DanCon]
Hmm... actually, roy makes a good point; the
internet draft needn't become an RFC; it can
just be pasted into the IANA registry, with a
pointer to the W3C spec.
[ian_]
PC: If this decision is in place, the XMLP WG
will have to pull a mime type registrationinto
one of its normative specs.
[DanCon]
[several]: yes, paul.
[ian_]
TBL: Yes, the primary spec referenced by the
registration.
[Roy]
i.e., the media format definition spec should
contain the media type definition forms.
[timbl]
XMLProtocol is about to push XMLP to last
call. The spec referenced by the registration
document should include the registration
document as a part.
[Chris]
Given that we issued a finding that said it
should be added 'at CR" and now changed irt to
"a t last call" then clearly there should be a
grace period for specs already in, or
immeduiately about to enter, last call
[ian_]
DC: Since PC wants to go from last call to PR,
media type should be included directly in last
call document.
PC: The registration has been done.
Action PC: Convey the desire of the TAG that
registration be included in soap spec before
going to last call.
TBL: If there's some reason why the WG doesn't
want that information in the spec, I'd want to
know why.
TB: I think grace period reasonable but prefer
inclusion.
[Chris]
yes we are standing by our finding
[ian_]
[On comments from Joseph Reagle.]
[Roy]
I read it and am standing by finding. Already
rebutted.
[ian_]
RF: The main process is that there exists a
spec somewhere that includes the correct
forms. They can either be part of an Internet
RFC....depends on type of media type being
defined....if global, there has to be an
Internet RFC saying where the format is
defined. It doesn't matter if IETF docs go out
of date.
[DanCon]
I think I understand reagle's objection well
enough to clarify; though I'd rather Roy did
it. ;-)
[ian_]
RF: You still have to submit the original
form.
DC: Some entries in registry point to specs,
not informational RFCs.
RF: That's the old process. There's another
one in place. I already replied to Reagle.
Action IJ/PC: Update finding to ensure that
it's clear that the registration must be part
of the document at last call if the WG expects
to skip CR.
2.3 Postponed
1. Architecture document
1. ACTION IJ 2002/03/18: Integrate/combine
one-page summaries (Revised 7 June)
2. ACTION TBL 2002/05/05: Negotiate more of IJ
time for arch doc
2. Status of discussions with WSA WG about SOAP/GET?
+ ACTION DO/TB/CL 2002/05/05: Pending XMLP
response, polish up DO's .1-level draft and
find out what's going on with XForms
+ ACTION DC 2002/06/10: Send note to Web
Services Architecture WG expressing concern
about normative binding for GET.
3. RFC3023Charset-21
+ ACTION CL 2002/6/03: Write up the issue in
the next day or so.
4. charmodReview-17: Confirm that this is closed.
5. 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 particular.
6. If we get here: httpRange-14, namespaceDocument-8
________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/06/18 20:13:22 $
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 16:18:20 UTC