- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:16:06 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello,
Minutes from the 24 June 2002 TAG teleconf available
at HTML [1] and quoted below as text.
_ Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-tag-summary
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
W3C | TAG | Initial agenda | Previous: 17 Jun | Next:
1 July
Minutes of 24 June 2002 TAG teleconference
Nearby: Teleconference details ? issues list ?
www-tag archive
1. Administrative
1. Chair: NW. Scribe: IJ
2. Roll call. Present: PC, NW, TB, DO, RF, CL, IJ.
Regrets DC, TBL, SW
3. Next meeting: 1 July. Regrets: DO, PC, NW
4. Resolved: Accepted 17 June minutes confirming
acceptance of both augmentedInfoset-22 and
xlinkScope-23.
5. Confirmed status of completed actions
1.2 Completed actions?
1. IJ 2002/06/17: Add augmentedInfoset-22 to issues
list. Assigned to Tim Bray
2. IJ 2002/06/17: Add xlinkScope-23 to issues list.
Action IJ: Ask TBL to take ownership of this
issue.
3. NW 2002/06/17: Call for initial review on www-tag
of "TAG Finding: Consistency of Formatting
Property Names, Values, and Semantics". Done
4. PC 2002/06/17: Convey the desire to the XMLP WG
that MIME type registration be included in soap
spec before going to last call.
5. IJ/PC 2002/06/17: 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 Candidate Recommendation. (Revised finding).
Confirmed changes to "Internet Media Type
registration, consistency of use" ($Date:
2002/06/24 22:12:37 $).
CL: I can live with that, though I predict that
people will find adding normative parts of the
spec after last call is not acceptable.
6. 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
Done. This action was partly completed and partly
subsumed.
7. charmodReview-17: Confirmed that this issue is
closed. Action IJ: Close this issue in the issues
list, referring to comments from NW to I18N WG.
2. Technical
1. Architecture document
2. Qnames as identifiers
3. Status of discussions with WSA WG about SOAP/GET
4. Postponed
2.1 New issues?
None.
2.2 Findings in progress, architecture document (45min)
See also: findings.
1. Comments on XMLP actions regarding SOAP and MIME
type registration. See email to TAG. Report back
to XMLP WG.
Action IJ: Ask Stuart to send a thank-you to the
XMLP WG from the TAG.
2.3.1 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
NW, TB: We prefer not to close this action item
yet until further discussion with TBL.
[Ian]
TB: Next step is to publish this draft of the
Arch document. It's well-enough cooked that we
should point people to draft document in
progress.
IJ: I can live with more wide distribution if
we loudly announce that it's a moving target.
I'd prefer to wait a tad bit longer.
NW (speaking as NW): I'm inclined to agree
with TB.
TB: How about that we agree that this will be
published by 1 July (with or without
improvements)?
IJ: I can live with that.
TB: Status section should be constructed
carefully:
1. This document doesn't represent TAG
consensus
2. It does however represent a lot of TAG
input.
3. It's a moving target.
4. [Also, remove the "@@" explanation.]
TB: I would echo comments made last time. When
you want to put explanatory text in, put
examples instead. In 1.2, "An HTTP URI
identifies a document"
RF: That was TBL's view. I'm vehemently
opposed to the idea that the URI identifies a
document.
TB: I support RF on that.
Resolved: Instead of presenting RF's text as
editorial Note, give two views equal footing.
Tie to issue httpRange-14 (not exactly that
issue, but related).
TB editorial notes:
1. Hyperlink in scheme property 1 is busted
2. Principle in section 1.4.1 doesn't have a
seq #, it should be 5
IJ: What term should "take precedence" in this
document? URI or URI Reference?
TB: Depends on what you're doing. But "All
important refs identified by URI", not URI
reference.
IJ: I will fix this.
CL: As soon as you have content negotiation,
you need to know mime type of response before
you interpret fragment id's.
IJ: Could someone write a paragraph on URIs
and URI references?
RF: Do you want the politically accurate view
or the technical view?
TB: I think both are required to understand
what the right thing to do is.
(IJ: I will also look at DO's comments on the
arch doc.)
Action RF: Write a para on URIs and URI
references.
RF: I will try to have this for next week, but
likely not ready by then.
Digression into discussion of revisions to URI spec
[Ian]
RF: I am working on revising the URI spec
right now, with Larry Masinter and TBL when he
has time.
TB: Why are you editing it?
RF: Integrating corrections, inclusion of IPV6
format, inclusion of some I18N work (but
unclear how much). Discussion will take place
on uri@w3.org. This week's a good time to
bring forward your burning issues on URIs.
IJ: Suggest alerting chairs that this work
going on.
RF: I will suggest that to Larry. TBL could
also do this.
Returning to architecture document
[Ian]
TB: Important to point out that the term "URI
reference" conflates relative URIs and
fragment IDs.
RF: Additional BNF terms is one suggested
improvement to the URI spec.
TB: That's how namespace names got to be URI
references. DC said we couldn't make up a new
construct that wasn't in the RFC...
2.3.2 Qnames as identifiers
1. NW 2002/06/17: Call for one-week review on
www-tag of QNames as Identifiers. TAG expects to
confirm completion next week. Done
[Ian]
NW: I would like to delay this decision this
week, in order to reply to comments from Rick
Jelliffe. Rick pointed out that some
vocabularies use different mechanisms for
associating URIs with prefixes. The finding
doesn't consider that usage.
CL: The schematron use of namespace bindings
is a type of escaping mechanism.
RF: I agree with CL.
TB: The way that schematron does this is
elegant and good.
NW: I think what CL makes sense, but that's
not my understanding of the example RJ posted.
I thought he wanted to refer to a namespace
expression, but instead of declaring with an
xml:ns attribute, he used his own element.
Therefore, I assumed that when he loaded that
data model, I thought he wanted the binding to
be understood even though this is done in a
proprietary manner.
CL: It's reasonable to expect a schematron
processor to understand it, but not a general
XML parser.
TB: Rick says "Schematron seems to violate
recommendations 1, 4 and perhaps 5...."
NW: The source of my concern is that I thought
that one intended outcome of this finding was
to make namespace usage more apparent to an
XML processor in general. Maybe that wasn't
the purpose of this finding.
Action NW: Follow up on Rick's comments/proposal by
next week.
2.3.3 Status of discussions with WSA WG about SOAP/GET
1. ACTION DC 2002/06/10: Send note to WSA WG
expressing concern about normative binding for
GET.
[Ian]
NW: Where are we on this issue?
DO: I spoke with some of our developers about
WSDL. Didn't send DC's note to the WSA WG.
Some discussion last week at end of call.: I
posted some text today to tag@w3.org about
problems I see. I think it's not as clear cut
about what the right thing to do is.
TB: I'm beginning to think that TBL was right
that we should be worried about this issue
(SOAP binding). WSDL has a way to declare a
SOAP message available through GET. But
doesn't use the "?" syntax to do so. I haven't
seen an attempt to harmonize SOAP changes in
1.2 and WSDL for how to do this.
DO: There's no example in the WSDL spec to
show how this could be done. This could be
done - ask WSDL folks to look at GET example
in SOAP 1.2 primer.: Also question of schema
for URI-encoded parameters.
TB: Maybe we don't have to figure out what to
do. The WSDL guys are the experts. Does it
suffice to point out to them that:
1. Some substantial changes to SOAP 1.2
2. There doesn't seem to be a way in WSDL to
declare this (and no examples illustrating
this).
3. Ask them to make necessary changes.
DO: How do you define type information
associated with a URI query string? Doesn't
seem related to Web Services (a Web thing, not
a Web Services thing). Another way is to
define a mapping between schema and URIs to
allow you to auto-generate a document that you
can validate against schema. I think the TAG
should have an idea about a direction to take.
In WSDL, the SOAP binding allows you to define
types (through Schema).: In WSDL, you define
messages (that use types). You define a port
type that accepts certain message types. Then
you define an actual port (and bind concept
into URI). There's also an HTTP binding in
WSDL (bindings between types and URIs). But
you cannot, e.g., say "?stocksymbol=foo". You
can only say "name value pairs after "?" and
that's it.: Can't say anything about query
string. Missing link between contents of a
query string (what names, and values can be,
which are required, etc.) and a schema type.
No way to associate types and content of a
query stringl
[Chris]
In other words, query strings are
unstructured.
[Ian]
RF: I agree that the [scribe missed] binding
sucks. It does not do what any reasonable
programming environment would want it to do.
Unclear about what data is acceptable, and
format of data exchanged. There are many
different ways to do this.
DO: Should XML Schema folks look at this
problem? Or HTML WG (since name/value pairs
part of HTML spec)?
RF: Doing this is the only reason WSDL exists.
WSDL defines an interface and translates
programmatically into an application. If it
wants to deal with the Web side of Web
services, should be a way to address
interface. I agree that the one defined by
WSDL so far isn't expressive.
CL: If you have a name value pair list, you
can go to a flat XML doc easily. If you go the
other way, it's not as trivial.
[PaulC]
Note that Noah Mendelsohn has sent a note on
this topic.
[Ian]
CL: I suspect Schema WG will balk at being
asked to address this. You could have
processors take a query string and convert to
XML doc (or vice-versa) and use XML Schemas.
NW: I don't see any reason why XML Schema is
only way to solve problems like this one.
Having said that, DO said something about
"slash-separated" stuff....
DO: In WSDL, GET binding where URI components
are separated with slashes. Pre-query string,
however. SOAP 1.2 primer example used
information after "?". You can't do types on
parts after "?".
PC: Have you seen Noah's most recent response?
DO: Yes.
PC: He is saying that this is no longer a SOAP
1.2 issue.
PC to DO: Why does the TAG have to do either
the WSA's work or the Web Services Description
Language WG's work?: Sounds like WSDL WG will
encounter same problem and will turn to SOAP
1.2.
DO: My reading of the tea leaves is that the
TAG considers this an important issue. I think
TAG considers this a high priority for WSDL as
well. Also educational backgrounder in
architecture of Web Services.
PC: I would paraphrase action item "Because
TAG thinks that this is important, we need to
ensure that the Web Services groups are aware
to changes in SOAP and that additional changes
may be necessary."
[TBray]
Do we have anyone on the TAG who's also on
WSDL group?
[Ian]
DO: After looking at WSDL spec, seems like
schema on query strings a more general
problem.
NW: I have appreciated DO's explanation and
feel this has changed direction slightly since
issue arose. I think we need to communicate
with Web services folks to say "Central issue
is here."
TB: I think we should liaison with Web
Services Description Language WG.
NW, TB: Let's ping WSDL WG to ensure that this
is on their radar.
DO: We can ask them to make this a high
priority in their schedule.
TB: I suggest we ask DO to talk informally
with someone from WSDL WG and come back and
reassure us and say they're on it. Or ask us
to send a formal message.
Action DO: Contact WSDL WG about this issue to ensure
that it's on their radar.
Postponed
1. Internet Media Type registration, consistency of
use
1. ACTION DC: research the bug in the svg
diagram.
2. ACTION NW 2002/06/24: Create a PNG version
of the diagram.
CL: I suggested fixing this so it had no
errors, then creating a PNG version.
2. 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.
PC: Since I won't be here next week, I would
prefer that this issue be on agenda after 1
July.
3. RFC3023Charset-21
+ ACTION CL 2002/6/03: Write up the issue in
the next day or so.
4. 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.
5. If we get here: httpRange-14, namespaceDocument-8
________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/06/24 22:12:37 $
Received on Monday, 24 June 2002 18:18:52 UTC