W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2003

[Minutes] 4 Aug 2003 TAG teleconf (Arch Doc)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 04 Aug 2003 18:59:34 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1060037973.1186.93.camel@seabright>


The minutes of the 4 Aug 2003 TAG teleconf are
available as HTML [1] and as text below.

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/04-tag-summary.html


                  Minutes of 4 August 2003 TAG teleconference

   Nearby: [4]IRC | [5]Teleconference details  [6]issues list 
   [7]www-tag archive

      [4] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/04-tagmem-irc.html
      [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/#remote
      [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist
      [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/

1. Administrative

    1. Roll call: SW (Chair), TB, CL, RF, NW, IJ (Scribe), TBL (end of
       call). Regrets: DO, DC, PC
    2. Accepted the [8]21 Jul face-to-face meeting minutes.
    3. The TAG did not accept the [9]28 Jul teleconf minutes (nobody had
       read them).
    4. Accepted this [10]agenda, but agreed to continue where Vancouver
       walkthrough of Arch Doc left off.
    5. Next meeting: 18 August teleconf. Regrets: IJ, TBL. Possible
       regrets: DO, PC.
    6. SW will be organizing a ftf meeting in Bristol 6-8 Oct, with
       teleconf link.

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/21-tag-summary.html
      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/28-tag-summary.html
     [10] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/14-tag.html

2. Technical

   The primary focus of this call was on the [11]1 August 2003 Editor's
   Draft of the Arch Doc, including a walkthrough of those section of the
   Arch Doc that the TAG had not covered at the Vancouver ftf meeting.

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801

  Actions related to Architecture Document

   Note that section numbers of these action items are with respect to
   the [12]draft.

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030716.html

   Completed actions:
     * Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Revise text in section 2.1 about
       risk of false negatives in comparing URIs.
     * Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Reword the good practice note with
       new term for "spelling" based on "character string".
     * Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Prune instances of "scheme name"
       except when referring to string component before ":"; RF calls
       this "scheme component".
     * Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Include POST (and other methods)
       as examples of deref methods at beginning of 2.5.
     * Completed action TB 2003/07/21: Continue Oaxaca story for
       beginning of section on messages, showing GET (with details) and
       POST (with details). ([13]Done)
     * Completed action NW 2003/07/21: Rewrite ([14]Done)
     * Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Produce Editor's Draft Weds or
       Thurs of next week.
     * Completed action TB 2003/07/28: Propose text for architecture
       document that distinguishes "information resource" from other
       types of "resources". ([15]Done)
     * Completed action CL 2003/07/21: Redraw diagram showing
       relationship between URI/Resource/Representation with (1) English
       words (2) no more "isa" arrows; just label objects.(Done ([16]png,

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0108.html
     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0409.html
     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0377.html
     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/att-0018/uri-res-rep.png
     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/att-0018/uri-res-rep.svgz

   Open action items:
     * Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 3 (section number in 1 Aug
       draft). Section 3 is expected to be short.
     * Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of
       "[18]Conversations and State" into section to be produced by RF.
     * Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about
       extensibility related to "when to tunnel".
     * Action CL 2003/07/21: Create an illustration of two resources, one
       designated by URI without fragment, and one designated by same URI
       with fragment...
     * Action IJ, CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of
       language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.
     * Action TBL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement to "URI persistence
       ...person's mailbox" in 2.6 and continue to revise [19]TBL draft
       of section 2.6 based on TAG's 23 July discussion.
     * Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5 showing
       examples of freenet and other systems.
     * Action TB and CL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement sentence in
       section regarding advantages of text formats.

     [18] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conversations
     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/tim

   Action items related to SVG spec that have been [20]transferred to the
   SVG issues list:
     * Action CL 2003/07/21: For SVG 1.2, tighten up language regarding
       use of GET for a element/href attribute. Also, ensure that SVG 1.2
       is clear on CE vs CTE

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-svg-wg/2003JulSep/0350.html


          Review of effect of completed actions
          "Applications may apply rules beyond basic string comparison
          (e.g., for "http" URIs, the authority component is
          case-insensitive) to reduce the risk of false negatives and
          positives. Please refer to section 6.3 of [URI] for more
          information about reducing the risk of false positives and
          Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Reword the good practice note
          with new term for "spelling" based on "character string".
          "URI characters: If a URI has been assigned to a resource, Web
          components SHOULD refer to the resource using the same URI,
          character for character."
          IJ: What about using "Web component" instead of "agent" change?
          CL: Seems ok to me.
          TB: I think that's probably worth doing as well. I won't stand
          for the term human component! These are people!
          Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Prune instances of "scheme
          name" except when referring to string component before ":"; RF
          calls this "scheme component".
          Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Include POST (and other
          methods) as examples of deref methods at beginning of 2.5.
          NW's new 4.6

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#identifiers-comparison
     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#composition

                CL: Recall that I have an objection to the phrase "final

          Continuing where we left off: 4.6
          IJ: We last were talking about extensibility at ftf meeting.
          TB: I am more and more nervous about 4.6 since topic of
          composition is new.
          CL: I agree, but we need something to work with. We already
          have some (positive and negative) experience.
          RF: What about putting this in the "future work" section?
          TB: I think that it's fine to point out some of the known
          issues. The issues in XML are not yet worked out. Don't be too
          sanguine about expanding this much more than is already there.

          unless its to enumerate more known problems

          4.7 extensibility and versioning.
          CL: Swap 4.6 and 4.7
          TB: I agree.
          NW: Yep
          TB: I disagree with definition "A format is extensible if
          instances of the format can include terms from other
          vocabularies. " There is a lot more than than adding elements.
          CL: There is ambiguity about word "Vocabulary."

          by that definition xml is not extensible

          NW: DO and I have a finding in the work on this. I propose that
          we leave this until the finding has moved along.

          (which could be fine - xml is a user restrictable vocabulary)

          TB: However, I think the second and third called out principles
          are excellent and I wouldn't want to lose them.
          TB, SW: Delete first principles; it's subsumed.
          IJ: How is your finding going in terms of defn of
          NW: More prose than algorithm.

          instead of M and N, perhaps n, n+1, n-1 ?

          IJ: But versions aren't required to be sequential to be
          compatible (or not).

          4.8. Presentation, Content, and Interaction

          CL: I am still working on text for this section. It will be a
          summary of long essay I previously sent.
          4.9. Hyperlinks
          NW: I'd like to change editorially "Allow Web-wide linking, not
          just internal document linking."
          CL: Split in two.
          TB: Yes, split. Does last good practice note belong here or in
          XML section?
          NW: N3 uses qnames as well.
          SW: Do we need to distinguish hyperlinking from other kinds of
          CL: Yes.
          IJ: Do we have a defn of hyperlink v. link that is not a
          horrible rat hole?
          TB, CL: No.
          TB: We should ack the fact that much of this section that much
          of the text applies to hyperlinks in XML.
          IJ: +1 to creating a generic hyperlink section and an
          xml-specific hyperlink section.
          NW, TB, CL: Yes.
          IJ: How does hyperlinking connect to "on the Web"?

          are embedded links (images etc) hyperlinks

          TB: I don't think we need to have a firm defn of hyperlink in
          this document.
          CL: Are embedded images hyperlink? Are all hyper links

          are all hyperlinks user actuated?

          NW: I share SW's concern. I'm happy to break 4.9 in two and
          take a stab at defining hyperlink as well.
          TB: I think we can get away with "When you go and implement
          something you think is a hyperlink, do this..." and we'll be
          4.10. XML-Based Data Formats
          CL: I don't like "XML-based".
          TB: I have found no better term than XML-based. I suggest
          leaving title as is and define what we mean in the first
          CL: That's fine by me.
          Action TB: Write a definition of "XML-based".
          IJ: Does "XML Application" connote something different?
          TB: Actually, more commonly it's an XML vocabularly.

          I mainly want to exclude 'similar to' xml, like using * instead
          of " for delimiting attributes and saying the syntax is 'based
          on' xml

          TB: In formal terms in the XML spec, "XML application" means
          anything that talks to an XML processor. So, SVG is an XML
          vocabulary not an XML application.


          4.10.1. When to Use an XML-Based Format
          TB: Delete that note; this is not crucial to the arch of the
          web: "Which XML Specifications make up the XML Family?"
          Resolved: Delete the note.
          4.10.2. XML Namespaces
          TB: We need a consistent formatting when we drop into story
          mode. Cite "title" element specifically.
          IJ: I also deleted a lot of prose I found confusing. Any good
          practice notes belong here?
          TB: We need a good practice note in 4.10.2: When designing a
          new XML vocabularly, put in its own namespace.
          CL: Much more important for elements than attributes.
          TB: Given that everyone is wrapping content in SOAP, not having
          a namespace is a problem.
          CL: Formatting attribs in xsl:fo should have been given a
          Action NW: Redraft 4.10.2 to include some good practice notes
          (e.g., use namespaces!)
          4.10.3. Namespace Documents

          fot attribute values, especially ones that are inherited

          IJ: I added "machine-readable" to good practice note.

          Dan googles on the namespace URI and gets back .....

          RF: I think "machine-readable" is a meaningless statement.
          IJ: In UAAG we talked about "content primarily intended for
          people" v. "primarily intended for processors"
          RF: Say "optimized for machines."
          CL: I think the "unattended" part is the key bit. A DTD is
          suitable for unattended processing.
          IJ: What about "Optimized for processors"? I'd like to find a
          short phrase AND include "unattended" in a definition.
          Action IJ: s/machine-readable/something like: optimized for
          processors, w/ defn that includes notion that it can be
          processed unattended (by a person).
          4.10.4. Fragment identifiers and ID semantics
          NW: Third para goes to some length to saqy that there is no
          semantics for +xml media types. We should note that that may
          change if RFC3023 changes. Allude to the fact that we may
          someday get there. In para starting "It is common
          practice...."; s/DTD validation/validation/

          see finding on xmlid-32

          RRSAgent, pointer?

          See [23]http://www.w3.org/2003/08/04-tagmem-irc#T20-14-10

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/04-tagmem-irc#T20-14-10

          s/DTD// and fix the grammar

          type ID

          Action NW: Rewrite para 4 of 4.10.4.
          4.10.5. Media Types for XML

          norm, see the canonical example
          <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
          <!DOCTYPE foo [
          <!ATTLIST foo partnum ID #IMPLIED> ]>
          <foo partnum="i54321" bar="toto"/>

          4.11. Future Directions for Representations and Formats

          Editorially in 4.10.5, check markup for "text/*" in the good
          practice note

          CL: Put 4.10.5 good practice note at the END of the section.
          NW: Yes, much better.
          CL: Also be more precise that intermediaries can only transcode
          in case of text/xml.

          They can transcode text/*, technically, yes?

          CL: Furthermore, append "and will cause the document to not be
          3. Interaction

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#interaction

          There are several more places where I think <code> markup would
          improve things

          CL: Please shorten 3.0.
          IJ: It's all story.
          CL: But it collects things and these need to be brough tout.
          brought out. There's a diagram here: browser gets octets and
          media type; can interpret octets given media type. Talk about
          layers here.
          IJ: Would these layer be important to the arch?
          CL: Yes.
          RF: "Some of the headers (for example, 'Transfer-encoding:
          identity', which indicates that no compression has been
          applied)" There is no "identity" encoding. You would simply not
          see any transfer-encoding header. That header field is not just
          for compression
          IJ: What about "(e.g., Transfer-encoding)"?
          RF: Yes, that's fine.
          IJ: Other examples you'd like to see in the parens?
          RF: No.
          CL: I'm fine with only 'Transfer-encoding'.
          SW: I am wondering whether we need more intro before the story.
          IJ: What about putting 3.1 before the story?
          CL: Yes, that lets you use the terms in the story.
          RF: Para 3 of Interaction doesn't talk about resource header
          fields. E.g., "vary" is about the response, not the
          TBL: Yes, I think we should make that distinction.

          Message, Representation, and Resource
          3 things

          RF: There are always three things: rep metadata, res metadata,
          and message metadata.
          IJ: Where should we talk about resource metadata?
          RF: Etag is representation. Alternates is resource metadata

          Examples of Resource: Alternates, Vary
          Examples of Representation; Etag

          SW: Message contains data and metadata. There are three types
          of metadata (resource, msg, representation)

          1. Data 2. Metadata

          IJ: Before we said that representation includes some of the
          representation metadata.

          2.1 message metadata 2.2. represtentaion metadat 2.3

          message metadata is transitory
          message metadata is clearly part of the interaction (only)
          resource metadata is not about the representation, so its in
          the interaction section also
          thus, only representation metadata is in the formats section

          RF: I'm going to rewrite the whole section anyway...
          TBL: There are more meanings than "about"; metadata describes
          IJ: I'd prefer slightly longer terms than just "data" since
          that leads to "Which data? Message data or representation

3. Bin

  Findings in Progress

     * [25]whenToUseGet-7: 9 July 2003 draft of [26]URIs, Addressability,
       and the use of HTTP GET and POST
          + DO said he had additional comments at 21 July 2003 ftf
          + See [27]comments from Noah
     * [28]contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of [29]Client
       handling of MIME headers
         1. [30]Comments from Roy on charset param
         2. [31]Comments from Philipp Hoschka about usability issues when
            user involved in error correction
         3. [32]Comments from Chris Lilley
     * [33]xmlIDSemantics-32:
         1. [34]Chris Lilley draft finding.
         2. Action CL 2003/06/30: Revise this draft finding with new
            input from reviewers. 7 July Deadline.
     * [35]contentPresentation-26: Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a
       draft finding on content/presentation.
     * [36]metadataInURI-31: 8 July 2003 draft of "[37]The use of
       Metadata in URIs"
          + Action DO 2003/07/07: Send rationale about why WSDL WG wants
            to peek inside the URI.
          + See also [38]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
            schemes instead of headers
     * [39]abstractComponentRefs-37
          + Action DO 2003/06/23: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask
            them for their analysis.
     * Action IJ 2003/07/21: Update Deep linking finding (i.e., create a
       new revision) with references to [40]German court decision
       regarding deep linking. No additional review required since just
       an external reference.
     * Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn [41]TB apple story into a finding.

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030709.html
     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0297.html
     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0051.html
     [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0076.html
     [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0113.html
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31
     [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html
     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [40] http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Sort=3&Datum=2003&Art=pm&client=3&Blank=1&nr=26553&id=1058517255.04
     [41] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/30/AppleWA

  Identifiers ([42]URIEquivalence-15 , [43]IRIEverywhere-27)

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27

     * [44]URIEquivalence-15
          + SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [45]Tim Bray text has
            been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
            issue to pending state.
     * [46]IRIEverywhere-27
          + Action CL 2003/04/07: Revised position statement on use of
          + Action TBL 2003/04/28: Explain how existing specifications
            that handle IRIs are inconsistent. [47]TBL draft not yet
            available on www-tag.
          + See TB's [48]proposed step forward on IRI 27.

     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [45] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4
     [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
     [47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0074.html
     [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html

  Qnames, fragments, and media types([49]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6,
  [50]fragmentInXML-28, [51]abstractComponentRefs-37, [52]putMediaType-38)

     [49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

     * [53]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
            desideratum ([54]RQ-23).
     * [55]fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML.
         1. Connection to content negotiation?
         2. Connection to opacity of URIs?
         3. No actions associated / no owner.
     * [56]abstractComponentRefs-37(discussed [57]above).
     * [58]putMediaType-38

     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [54] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
     [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag.html#findingsInProgress
     [58] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

  New and other Issues requested for discussion. ([59]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33,
  [60]RDFinXHTML-35, [61]siteData-36 plus possible new issues)

     [59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
     [61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36

   Existing Issues:
     * [62]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     * [63]RDFinXHTML-35
     * [64]siteData-36
          + Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36

     [62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     [63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
     [64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36

   Possible New Issues
     * [65]Visibility of Web Services, raised by Mark Baker
     * [66]Character model conformance, raised by TBL
     * [67]Meaning of URIs in RDF documents, raised by TBL

     [65] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0069.html
     [66] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0009.html
     [67] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0022.html

  Other issues

     * [68]namespaceDocument-8
          + Action TB 2003/04/07: Prepare RDDL Note. Include in status
            section that there is TAG consensus that RDDL is a suitable
            format for representations of an XML namespace. Clean up
            messy section 4 of RDDL draft and investigate and publish a
            canonical mapping to RDF.
          + Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue,
            pointing to the RDDL Note. See [69]comments from Paul
            regarding TB theses.
          + Refer to draft TAG [70]opinion from Tim Bray on the use of
            URNs for namespace names.
     * [71]uriMediaType-9
          + IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
            (see [72]email from Chris Lilley).What's required to close
            this issue?
          + Action CL 2003/05/05: Propose CL's three changes to
            registration process to Ned Freed. [What forum?]
     * [73]HTTPSubstrate-16
          + Action RF 2003/02/06: Write a response to IESG asking whether
            the Web services example in the SOAP 1.2 primer is intended
            to be excluded from RFC 3205
          + See [74]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
     * [75]xlinkScope-23
          + See [76]draft, and [77]SW message to CG chairs.
          + Action CL 2003/06/30: Ping the chairs of those groups asking
            for an update on xlinkScope-23.
     * [78]binaryXML-30
          + Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on
            adding to survey.
          + Action IJ 2003/07/21: Add link from issues list binaryXML-30
            to upcoming workshop
          + Next steps to finding? See [79]summary from Chris.
     * [80]xmlFunctions-34
          + Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
            XML Core work. See [81]email from TimBL capturing some of the
     * [82]charmodReview-17
         1. Completed action IJ 2003/07/14: Move issue 17 to pending
            rather than resolved.
         2. Completed action DC: Remind I18N WG of what we are expecting
            regarding issue 17; send this on behalf of the TAG

     [68] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag#namespaceDocument-8
     [69] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
     [70] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0003.html
     [71] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
     [72] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html
     [73] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
     [74] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
     [75] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
     [76] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
     [77] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
     [78] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
     [79] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
     [80] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
     [81] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html
     [82] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#charmodReview-17
     [83] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0052.html

Other actions

     * Action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that
       actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. IJ and PLH making
       substantial progress on this; hope to have something to show in


    Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2003/08/04 22:59:02 $

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 18:59:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:00 UTC