- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 12:11:47 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello,
Minutes from the 7 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.
- Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/10/07-tag-summary
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
========================================================
W3C | TAG | Previous: 24-25 Sep ftf meeting | Next:
21 Oct
Minutes of 7 October 2002 TAG teleconference
Nearby: IRC log ? Teleconference details ? issues
list ? www-tag archive
1. Administrative
1. Roll call: SW (Chair), TBL, NW, PC, RF, DO, PC,
CL, IJ (Scribe). Regrets: DC
2. Accepted 24-25 Sep ftf meeting minutes
3. Accepted monthly summary (sent).
4. Accepted this agenda
5. Next meeting: 21 Oct. (14 Oct is holiday in
Canada and US)
1.2 Completed actions
1. TB 2002/09/24: Send a draft email to tag@w3.org
regarding XML namespaces 1.1 spec in last call
(Done, then email sent to www-tag).
2. NW 2002/09/24: Draft an email (for TAG review)
suggesting to the HTML WG that XHTML 2.0 should
use XLink for hyperlink constructs, or provide a
technical explanation why that's not a good
design decision. (Done, then email sent to
www-tag).
1.3 Meeting planning
1. Action IJ 2002/09/24: Report to plenary meeting
organizers that the TAG does not intend to have a
ftf meeting at that time. [Done]
2. Action IJ 2002/09/24: Begin planning a meeting
for Feb 2003 in Boston. [Alert sent to admin
folks]
3. Action IJ 2002/09/24: Find out more
administrative information about TAG ftf meeting
in Nov 2002. [Done; see meeting page]
4. Action IJ 2002/09/24: Send email to Steve Bratt
requesting slot at AC meeting for arch
discussion, distinct from TAG reporting slot. Ask
the AB if they agree to sharing slots at AC
meeting. [Done] The AB has declined the offer,
because the AB thinks it will need more time to
do its own update.
5. Action IJ, SW 2002/09/24: Compile list of process
questions AB postponed so that first TAG could
answer. [Done; TAG-only]
6. Action SW 2002/09/24: Take to the mailing list
the top three TAG questions for the AC (for Nov
2002). (Sent to TAG; for discussion 21 Oct)
The TAG discussed its presentation to the Advisory
Committee at the Nov 2002 AC meeting.
Action PC: Respond toIJ's summary of process issues
(TAG-only) from AB regarding TAG charter. Also,
clarify meaning of "short-term resolutions" in
charter.
2. Technical
1. xlinkScope-23
2. Arch doc revision schedule
3. RFC3023Charset-21
2.1 xlinkScope-23
See issue xlinkScope-23. SW began discussion on the
topic of TAG communication on this issue from the
24-25 Sep ftf meeting
1. xlinkScope-23
1. Action CL 2002/08/30: Request that the HTML
WG to publish their recent work related to
linking (through HTML CG, WG, or whatever
works). [Done]
[Ian]
SW: TBL and I felt we might have done a better
job in communication. IJ sent me a request:
that the chairs make a statement about the
normative standing of communications from the
TAG. My response to this is: if not been
through W3C Rec track process, not normative.
TB: I think SW's assertion is true. However,
the TAG was chartered to document what is
architecturally sound; so other groups should
"pay attention" to our communications even if
they are not strictly normative.
IJ: I am looking for clarification about the
phrase "Short term resolutions" in the
charter: "Short-term issue resolutions are
subject to appeal by Advisory Committee
representatives; refer to the appeal process
described in section 6 of the Process
Document."
[TBray]
Disagree with scribe's formulation slightly:
even though it may not be normative, part of
Director's role is to do oversight on
architectural consistency, and since such
consistency is in the TAG's purview, a WG
chair might very reasonably worry about an
outstanding TAG opinion that there are arch
problems
[Ian]
TB: The issues don't go away, whether the
communications are normative or not.
TBL: If you disagree with us, it's important
that you tell us. I think we cautious that our
communications clearly state when TAG
discussion is the start, not end, of technical
discussion. Some discussion had already taken
place on public lists, but discussion needs to
happen in one (public) place.
[Discussion of the use of the term "normative"
in this context.]
TBL: The Arch Doc is not normative in the
sense of other documents on the W3C
Recommendation track.
CL: Do we encourage people to design specs in
line with findings?
TBL: Relationship between an arch spec and
another is context-sensitive. It's reasonable
for people to challenge the architecture doc
in some circumstances.: Findings are not
Recommendations. Even if communications not
"normative", difference of opinions are
important.
TB: Couldn't hurt to say again that the ftf
opinions were expressed to start discussion.
I'd like to talk about strategy about moving
xlink issue forward.
PC: We've already commented that we haven't
gotten enough feedback yet from W3C
participants. I want to encourage the TAG to
use its resources to push its WD forward
aggressively.
[DaveO]
I had proposed that we have a matrix of all
the possible designs and possible syntaxes
[Ian]
IJ: What is a "short term" resolution as the
TAG charter says?
SW: I think that TAG findings are short-term
resolutions.
[TBray]
agree with Stuart
[Ian]
SW: But we haven't had to face "dispute
resolution"
IJ: I suggest that PC in his review of process
issues try to comment on the "short-term
resolution" part of our charter; whether it
applies in practice.
[Moving on to technical issue of moving
xlinkScope-23 forward.]
CL: See my email from a moment ago.
SW: How to we build consensus moving forward,
in light of lots of discussion since ftf
meeting.
[Zakim]
Timbl, you wanted to discuss direction
specifically for the XLink question
[Ian]
TBL: I am not sure we are converging yet on
this issue. TAG could help by charting the
discussion space. Some discussion, for
example, has been about "why XLink does not
provide what XHTML needs". There are other
pieces as well (requirements for XHTML,
requirements for mixing namespaces, etc.) Mail
threads not sufficiently powerful to resolve
this one yet. A matrix of issues (as DO
pointed out) would help. Also provide history
and indicate where we must move beyond history
(possibly with apologies).
DO: I agree with TBL here. I also agree with
Noah Mendelsohn - more clearly state the costs
and benefits of different proposals.
TB: I agree with DO and TBL that it's urgent
that we structure this debate.: A matrix of
alternatives and trade-offs would be very
helpful. I am optimistic. I also think it's
important to reach out the HTML WG. Will the
HTML WG be interested in engaging debate on
this? How do we encourage the HTML WG to
participate in these discussions?
SW: How about participation in the matrix
summary?
[NW notes that XLink WG charter expires at end
of year.]
TB: I sent a comment on how to revise XLink to
get rid of 90% of xlink:type and got friendly
replies from people. Such a change might help
build consensus.
IJ: I support a TAG teleconf inviting a few
people to hammer out consensus.
TBL: Some concerns that it might focus too
much on rehashing history.
[TAG chuckles at "The Matrix" jokes.]
[Norm]
"There is no xlink..."
[Ian]
CL: Need to include the SMIL and XForms folks
in the party; find out rationale for their
decisions,: (e.g., find out why xforms last
call doc removed xlink) And ask SVG WG why it
helped them.
PC: I urged us to have this debate in public
so that we could understand whether it is
feasible for a group to use XLink (or a
slightly modified alternative). The result of
the process may be that XLink Rec needs work,
and other WGs may want to include links in
specs where they feel XLink is inappropriate.
I think we may end up with a "split decision",
where we recommend XLink for some cases and
nothing in other cases. I think that's where
we are today. Unless we speak to that problem,
we'll just go around in circles.
DO: I agree with PC.
NW: I think PC is probably right. I have not
been getting optimistic vibes from the
discussion thus far. At the end of the day,
some people will just do linking in their own
namespaces, and no technical, political, or
social issue will convince them; and we should
accept that.
CL (re: PC's comment): I can't imagine we
would issue a Solomonic pronouncement. I think
we need more discussion focusing on technical
needs.
TBL: We need to consider requirements from
different areas, but we may rule some of them
out.
[TBray]
agrees with TimBL on this
[Ian]
TBL: You can use xhtml:a as well.
TBL wanted to agree to as many possible
outcomes, including new xlink, using html:a in
other languages, and so on.
[Ian]
TB: I disagree with NW in part about whether
people will dig in their heels. We need to
tease out technical issues. If people continue
to hold positions based on other reasons
(e.g., emotional), those reasons probably
won't hold.
TBL: Email will be easier than teleconf to
move issue forward.
[TBray]
agree with TBL
[Ian]
SW: Who would like to edit a matrix?
IJ: I suggest surveying different groups to
find out why they chose/did not chose xlink,
what pros /cons are for them?
DO: I think we should prime the pump and send
a proposal to the community. I have expressed
my opinion previously that I have concerns
about spending a lot of time on this issue,
but now that we have chosen to do so, I think
we should kick off discussion with a proposal.
[Discussion of structuring follow-up]
[Chris]
seconded - Go Stuart!
[Ian]
Action SW: Draw up a neutral proposal (due 21
Oct) summarizing threads and debating
points on xlinkScope-23.
[TBray]
I'd like the minutes to reflect that I've
expressed concern about lack of input except
for initial statements from HTML WG people
like Steven Pemberton & Shane McCarron,
especially given that some new-sounding things
have been said in the last couple of weeks
So I don't think we can make real progress
until their opinions/analyses/examples are
part of the discussion
2.2 Architecture document revision schedule
IJ discussed his schedule and intention to return to
work on Arch Doc around 17 October.
1. Draft schedule for next arch document:
1. 28 Oct: TAG review of whatever current draft
is starts.
2. 4 Nov: TAG closes issues about draft.
3. 11 Nov: Final discussion, request to
publish.
4. 13 Nov: Next TR draft published.
Other Architecture document actions
1. Completed Action TBL: 2002/07/15: Create a table
of URI properties. (Done)
2. Action RF 2002/09/25: On the topic of revising
RFC2396, indicate to the TAG what the relevant
IETF fora are for input.
RF: Join uri@w3.org (archive). I will send a
message about the relevant issue when it comes
up.
Still open:
1. Finish discussion of feedback on arch document.:
1. Summary of comments
2. Comments from Graham Klyne
3. Comments from Daniel Dardailler
2. Action DC 2002/08/12: Ask www-tag for volunteers
to work with TAG (and possibly IETF) on HTTP URI
stuff; CRISP. [This action supersedes the
previous action: Ask IESG when IETF decided not
to use HTTP URIs to name protocols.] Sent.
Awaiting reply.
3. Action RF 2002/09/25: Propose a rewrite of a
principle (rationale -> principle -> constraint)
to see whether the TAG prefers this approach. It
was suggested that the example be about
HTTP/REST, as part of section 4.
4. Action TBL 2002/09/25: Propose text on
information hiding.
5. Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3,
incorporating CL's existing text and TB's
structural proposal (see minutes of 25 Sep ftf
meeting on formats).
CL: I hope to have this by end of week.
6. Action NW 2002/09/25: Write some text for a
section on namespaces (docs at namespace URIs,
use of RDDL-like thing).
NW: In progress.
7. Action RF 2002/09/25: On the topic of revising
RFC2396, indicate to the TAG what the relevant
IETF fora are for input.
8. Action DO/NW 2002/0925: Write up a piece for arch
doc on versioning.
2.3 RFC3023Charset-21
Having reviewed IJ's proposed changes to finding and
reply from Reagle, the TAG agreed to close issue
RFC3023Charset-21.
2.4 Postponed
Findings in progress
See also: findings.
1. Findings in progress:
1. deepLinking-25
1. TB 2002/09/09: Revise "Deep Linking" in
light of 9 Sep minutes. Status of
finding?
2. Findings versioning
1. SW 2002/09/09: Discuss with IJ versioning of
findings. Pending. SW and IJ have discussed
latest accepted v. latest draft.
Issues
1. namespaceDocument-8
1. Action TB 2002/09/24: Revise the RDDL
document to use RDF rather than XLink. Goal
of publication as W3C Note.
2. Action NW 2002/09/25: Write some text for an
Arch Doc section on namespaces (docs at
namespace URIs, use of RDDL-like thing).
2. contentPresentation-26
1. Action CL 2002/09/24: Draft text on the
principle of separation of content and
presentation for the Arch Doc.
3. rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
1. Action DC 2002/09/24: Write to Schema WG to
say that TAG is interested in progress on
this issue. Copy Jonathan Borden and Brian
McBride.
4. uriMediaType-9:
+ Action DC 2002/08/30: Write a draft Internet
Draft based on this finding (Deadline 30
Sep). This action probably subsumes the
action on TBL to get a reply from the IETF
on the TAG finding.
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. See more comments from
Martin.
1. CL 2002/08/30: Ask Martin Duerst for
suggestions for good practice regarding URI
canonicalization issues, such as %7E v. &7e
and suggested use of lower case. At 16 Sep
meeting, CL reports pending; action to send
URI to message to TAG.
6. Status of discussions with WSA WG about
SOAP/WSDL/GET/Query strings?
+ 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 9 Sep TAG teleconf.
2.5 New issues?
* Use of frags in SVG v. in XML
+ Action DC 2002/09/26: Describe this issue in
more detail for the TAG.
________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/10/08 16:09:27 $
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2002 12:12:08 UTC