Minutes of 27 May 2002 TAG teleconf (charmodReview-17, URIEquivalence-15)

Hello,

Minutes of 27 May 2002 teleconference [1] are available
at HTML and quoted below as text.

  - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/05/27-tag-summary


	       Summary of 27 May 2002 TAG teleconference

Note: There was no IRC log of this meeting.

Previous meeting: [1]20 May 2002 [Minutes approved at this meeting]
Next meeting: 3 June 2002. See [2]TAG home for more meeting
information. Regrets from SW for next meeting.

   [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/05/20-tag-summary
   [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/

Participants: Tim Bray (TB), Paul Cotton (PC), Chris Lilley (CL),
David Orchard (DO), Stuart Williams (SW), Ian Jacobs (IJ, Scribe)

Regrets: Dan Connolly, Norm Walsh

Absent: Tim Berners-Lee, Roy Fielding

Agenda

See [3]initial agenda:
1. [4]Review of action items
2. [5]Accept issue raised by Rob Lanphier?
3. [6]Progress on charmodReview-17
4. [7]Review of findings in progress
5. [8]Progress on architecture document
6. [9]Progress on URIEquivalence-15

   [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/05/27-tag

Summary of resolutions

1. Do not accept Rob Lanphier's requested issue at this time. See
    [10]discussion..

Action items

Closed:
1. TBL: Take uriMediaType-9 finding to IETF and IANA. TBL to contact
    Eastlake and Masinter, copy www-tag. [11]Done.
2. CL, NW: Review Character Model for the Web (last call). [12]CL
    Done. NW done to TAG (expected to be made public).
3. Revise and publish [13]Media Types finding

  [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0138
  [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0164
  [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime

Open:
1. IJ: Integrate/combine one-page summaries into arch doc. [Partly
    done in [14]arch doc draft] Summaries from chapters 1 and 2
    started to be integrated, but not 3 or 4.
2. TBL: Negotiate more of IJ time for arch doc
3. CL: Add concern regarding non-western characters to the POST
    scenario (issue whenToUseGet-7). Progress has been made through
    discussions with Martin Duerst.
4. IJ: revise and publish [15]whenToUseGet-7 finding. Some revisions
    made. IJ to take into account new comments from TAG.
5. NW: Draft a finding for formattingProperties-19; find out source
    of issue from CSS WG.

  [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0508-intro
  [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7

On hold:
1. DO/DC/CL: Polish up DO's .1-level draft and find out what's going
    on with XForms. Partly done; some discussions with XForms reps at
    AC meeting. DO reports that the XMLP WG is working on a new
    proposal to address GET bindings in SOAP. The TAG would like the
    XMLP WG to share the proposal with the TAG as early as is
    convenient for the WG.

Note: The TAG discussed the impact of www-tag discussions on
other Working Groups. The TAG reaffirmed its intention to carry
out its technical discussions on www-tag. To avoid confusion
between the personal views of TAG participants and formal TAG
positions, the TAG feels it is sufficient that emails begin with
text such as "in my personal opinion", or similar.

Accept issue raised by Rob Lanphier?

See [16]issue raised by Rob Lanphier asking "What is appropriate
error resilience/recovery/"second guessing" in web software?".

  [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0124

<Ian> TB: I think there is no new issue here? Seems too
general. Not sure what the recommendation would be. There are
issues in RL's email, but as framed, I'm not sure what you could
make a finding about.

<Ian> IJ: What about asking QA to answer this in its guidelines?

<Ian> TB: I think there are issues here that are not just QA
issues, but as written too much conflated.

<Ian> Action TB: Respond to RL on the list asking for more
detail.

<Ian> Resolved: Do not accept this as a TAG issue (but do not
decline).

Progress on charmodReview-17

See issue [17]charmodeReview-17. Please note [18]Charmod last
call review form.

  [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#charmodReview-17 [18]
  http://www.w3.org/2002/05/charmod/LastCall

<Ian> TB: I think we should apologize to the I18N WG and say we
think that the TAG will have some material comments to make, but
request a 1-week extension.

<Ian> CL: I suggest that people review NW and CL comments for 3
June.  Approve some version on 3 June and send to I18N WG. I
think we can commit to them having full comments by 4 June.

<Ian> TB straw poll: the basic comment on charmod spec is good
reason to split document into three - things well-established,
things that might require a CR period, things not yet
well-established. Some great explanatory discussion and
advice. Should be published. Shouldn't be held up while we fight
out other parts of the spec.

<Ian> PC: I agree with that. My WG is likely to lament the early
normalization bits.

<Ian> Summarizing:
1. Action CL: Send Charmod spec comments to www-tag ([19]done).
2. Action IJ: Ask NW to make his I18N comments public.
3. Action CL: Inform I18N WG that we think we will comment that the
    doc should be improved by splitting into different pieces (those
    well-known, those requiring CR period, and those much less
    developed). Apologize to I18N for delay, and ask to extend
    deadline until 4 June. We will review comments from CL and NW at
    the 3 June teleconf.

  [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0164.html

<Ian> TB: Is there a study done on the actual
cost/size/performance of code required to do early normalization?
 From an engineering perspective, how big of a deal is this?

<Ian> PC: Charmod doc talks of an algorithm for doing this. In
the Query WG, the algorithm was compelling. Most people agreed
that this would make normalization an order of mag. faster than
they had imagined. I'm not sure the charmod spec says anything
about the footprint.

<Ian> CL: Yes, charmod spec does speak to this.

<Ian> TB: I think people will agree that normalization is a good
thing. The question is how much you pay for this benefit.

<Ian> PC: Lots of people worried about backwards compatibility
cost.

Review of findings in progress

The TAG did not approve any draft findings. The TAG will have as
homework for the next meeting to review the following draft
findings:

1. [20]TAG Finding: Internet Media Type registration, consistency of
    use
    Tentative approval from CL, TB, SW. See [21]email from Tantek and
    comments from [22]Arjun Ray.
2. [23]TAG Finding: Using QNames as Identifiers
3. [24]TAG Finding: When to use GET to make Resources Addressable
    Action IJ: Incorporate comments from SW (TAG only).

  [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime
  [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0110
  [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0106.html
  [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids
  [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7

Progress on architecture document

<Ian> IJ: I met with RF and TBL last week. Made good progress on
a stripped-down version of chapter one. I hope to publish a new
draft with this more terse form soon.

/* IJ shows the TAG some notes. There was general agreement from
those present that this terse format is the right direction. */

Progress on URIEquivalence-15

See issue [25]URIEquivalence-15.

  [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#URIEquivalence-15

<Ian> TB: Good stuff on www-tag on this one, in particular
[26]email from Martin.

  [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0161

<Ian> Homework for next week: Read Martin's email. (High on
agenda for next week)

<Ian> PC: can URIEquivalence-15 and charmodReview-17 be
separated? We should be prepared to discuss their
connection/relation next week.

<Ian> SW: I agree. Can we say that the succesful production of a
character model will go a long way in resolving
URIEquivalence-15?

<Ian> TB: I don't think so. But charmod will help us discuss this
more clearly.

<Ian> PC: Should we invite an I18N person to the teleconf?

<Ian> CL, TB: Yes.

<Ian> IJ: Martin may not be able to make this teleconf in
Japan. Misha might be able to.

<Ian> TB: Let's try to resolve this ourselves first. I will
commit to reading Martin's email and the IRI draft. I will try
and summarize the key things for the TAG. TB: Not sure how to
answer: Do IRIs have any traction anywhere (e.g., IETF, among
developers)?

<Ian> CL: Depends on which part. IE, there's an option "Put into
UTF-8, then hexify"; that's part of IRI document.

<Ian> TB: Yes, we'd like to see - "Put in UTF-8, then hexify"

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

Received on Monday, 27 May 2002 18:18:06 UTC