- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:31:21 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello,
Minutes available at HTML [1] and available as
text below.
- Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/10/21-tag-summary
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
==========================================================
W3C | TAG | Previous: 7 Oct teleconference | Next: 28
Oct
Minutes of 21 October 2002 TAG teleconference
Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details ? issues
list ? www-tag archive
1. Administrative
1. Roll call: SW (Chair), DC, TB, DO, PC, NW, IJ
(Scribe). Regrets: TBL, CL. Absent: RF.
2. Accepted 7 Oct teleconference minutes
3. Accepted this agenda
4. Next meeting: 28 October. Possible regrets from PC.
1.2 Completed actions
1. Action RF 2002/09/25: On the topic of revising
RFC2396, indicate to the TAG what the relevant
IETF fora are for input. Done: uri@w3org is the
forum. RF will send information there.
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. Mark
Baker and DC have a draft.
1.3 AC meeting planning
1. TAG presentation at AC meeting.
1. Action IJ: Request different time slot to
improve proximity to TAG ftf meeting.
2. TAG expects to discuss the following topics
(presenter indicated):
1. XLink: SW
2. Arch Document: TB (or DC if TB cannot).
As part of this report, talk about IETF
liaison regarding URIs.
3. GET7/SOAP story: DO.
3. Action SW, TB, DO: Send slides for AC
discussion to TAG for review by 11 November.
Review to take place primarily by email.
4. TAG does not expect to give an oral update;
will be done in the form of a written
summary. Action IJ: Draft written summary of
TAG activity in last six months for AC. The
report will include an assessment of TAG's
work, process, as discussed at TAG ftf
meeting. The report will also include
observations on process issues raised by AC
on original TAG charter. Action IJ and PC:
Include information from IJ's summary of
process issues (TAG-only) from AB regarding
TAG charter. Also, clarify meaning of
"short-term resolutions" in charter.
2. Technical
* 2.1 Findings, arch doc
* 2.2 xlinkScope-23
* 2.3 Other technical issues and actions
* 2.4 New issues
* 2.5 Postponed
2.1 Findings, Architecture Document
1. Findings in progress:
1. deepLinking-25
1. TB 2002/09/09: Revise "Deep Linking" in
light of 9 Sep minutes. Status of
finding?
TB: Pending; I still have to
incorporate comments from people.
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; need to
draft written proposal for TAG.
3. Architecture document
1. Finish discussion of feedback on arch
document. Action IJ: Summarize remaining
review comments:
1. Summary of comments
2. Comments from Graham Klyne
3. Comments from Daniel Dardailler
Action IJ 2002/10/17 (from Chair): Summarize
these comments for the TAG.
2. 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.
3. Action TBL 2002/09/25: Propose text on
information hiding. (From 24-25 Sep TAG ftf:
"The principle of information-hiding is
contrary to global identifiers....Shall we
put in the document something about
information hiding/independent design of
orthogonal specs? You should should not be
able to write an xpath to peek into http
headers....")
4. 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).
5. Action NW 2002/09/25: Write some text for a
section on namespaces (docs at namespace
URIs, use of RDDL-like thing).
2.2 xlinkScope-23
[Ian]
TB, PC: Please wait until we comment on this
before linking to it.
DC: HTML WG has no obligation to participate
on www-tag. We can certainly invite them to
participate as a WG. Our original email went
to the HTML WG; we are awaiting a reply from
the HTML WG. SW can talk to the Chair and ask
for a reply; or continued discussion on
www-tag.
PC: I think we need to ask whether we still
hold the same opinion having seen the input. I
expect this to be back on our agenda. I don't
disagree with DC - getting more consolidated
input on different perspectives would be
useful.
TB: I'm not sure what the appropriate path
forward is, process-wise.
[TAG notes that relevant threads have slowed
down here and on xml-dev.]
[DanCon]
thanks, Tim Bray, for reading all this email.
[Ian]
TB: I think most of the substantive talk on
xml-dev was also sent to www-tag (prompted by
TB).
PC: The summary should include some of what we
discussed at the FTF meeting. Otherwise, the
summary is disconnected.
DC: E.g., my reasons for using XLink are not
in SW's summary.: PC's document ("why we
decided what we did, who (dis)agrees and why")
is interesting.
TB: I did this:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/20
02Oct/0075.html
TB: I think that some of the rationale is in
that email.
[DC notes that this is cited from SW's
summary.]
PC: I think we can engage in more useful
discussion and debate by demonstrating where
agreement/differences are.
[DanCon]
My position at the ftf meeting was mostly:
let's share technology where we can; one
linking technology is likely better than 2,
unless the 1 is 1000% worse than either of the
2.
[Ian]
DC: I agree that PC's document would be handy.
[Support for SW adding more on TAG rationale
to summary.]
IJ: These are called "findings."
DC: An interesting place to start this summary
is when this was raised in the TAG. It would
have been an abuse of process to squash the
HLink WD. I'd like this to go back to the
genesis of the issue; reported journalistic
style. This started because the Director
observed a disconnect; this was not at the
request of the WGs involved.
TB: SW tried to cite the arguments and to
summarize them. That's tricky, but if done
well, that's a service to the community.
Perhaps we could revise the summary along
these lines:
1. We were asked to consider this.
2. We said yes (reference).
3. People disagreed (references, reasons).
4. etc.
TB: Perhaps point/counter-point can be
dropped, and follow along historical lines.
DC: I'm conflicted. This was a huge
time-saver. I think the summary is interesting
of the discussion (even if not connected to
our decision). It would be a shame to lose
what SW has done.
TB: The imposition of point/counter-point
approach might grate some. But I would be
satisfied with SW approach and more connection
to our decision.
SW: I will gladly take input on mailing list
for the next couple of days.
DC: If SW and any other TAG participant say ok
to go public, ok by me.
[Support for DC's suggestion from TB and NW.]
Action SW 2002/10/21: Starting from email from SW to
TAG, develop a summary of technical discussion and
send to www-tag. Include more rationale for original
TAG email to HTML WG.
2.3 Other technical issues and actions
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.
TB: This turns out to be harder than I
thought. I am still working on this.
2. rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
1. Completed 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.
DC: The Schema WG is making progress; they
will get back to us when they're done. See
XML Schema thread on this topic.
3. 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.
DC: There is an Internet draft on this, but
I need to revise some of my language. My
guess is that it will take me another month
or so. I do think that this is the right
direction. I have noted input from Larry
Masinter.
DO: I've been having discussions with Donald
Eastlake; he plans to revise his draft.
2.4 New issues?
* Use of frags in SVG v. in XML
+ Action DC 2002/09/26: Describe this issue in
more detail for the TAG
* Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema,
etc from Tim Bray.
DC: TB's mail convinced me that we have an issue.
NW: I'm also willing to support this as an issue.
Action TB: Reformulate issue for next week's
meeting; we will decide then whether to add to
the issues list.
2.5 Postponed
1. contentPresentation-26
1. Action CL 2002/09/24: Draft text on the
principle of separation of content and
presentation for the Arch Doc.
2. 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.
2. IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces)
from Jonathan Marsh. Is this part of this
issue or a new issue?
3. 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.
________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/10/21 22:20:41 $
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 18:31:26 UTC