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

[Minutes] 30 June 2003 TAG teleconference (Arch Doc, Findings, Issues walkthrough)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 30 Jun 2003 19:13:08 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1057014788.916.81.camel@seabright>


Minutes from the 30 June 2003 TAG teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.

 _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/30-tag-summary.html


                  Minutes of 30 June 2003 TAG teleconference

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

      [4] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/30-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), TBL, NW, DC, TB, CL, IJ. Regrets: RF, PC,
    2. Accepted minutes of [8]23 Jun teleconference
    3. Accepted this [9]agenda
    4. Next meeting: 7 July
    5. The TAG does not expect to meet 18 Aug, 25 Aug, 1 Sep.

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/23-tag-summary.html
      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/30-tag.html

   Next meeting with Voice WG?

          SW: IJ and I met with some reps from Voice WG last week. They
          are revising some proposed text. They will circulate to IJ and
          me for review. If all goes well, I'd like to schedule some time
          with them to confirm it.
          Proposed: Voice WG expected to join our 7 July teleconf for a
          small piece.
          SW: If we have material from them we'll try to include them in
          next week's call.

2. Technical

  2.1 Architecture document

   [10]27 June 2003 Working Draft of Arch Doc published.
    1. Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 5. Section 5 is expected to
       be short.
    2. Completed action DO 2003/06/02: Write up a couple of paragraphs on
       extensibility for section 4 ([11]Done).
    3. Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of
       "[12]Conversations and State" into section to be produced by RF.
    4. Action PC 2003/06/16: Send second draft of AC announcement
       regarding TAG's last call expectations/thoughts and relation to AC
       meeting feedback.
       SW: I have no update on that action,.

     [10] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030627/
     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0086.html
     [12] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conversations


          IJ: New draft published last Friday. Comments are coming in on
          previous draft; I haven't read them. TB and DC did editorial
          DC: Balance between story and formal spec to my liking now. I'd
          like to add an illustration for the travel scenario.
          TB: I have discomfort on the section on authority (section
          2.3). I don't know why we have a section if not for
          programmers' benefits.
          DC: I think this will be connected to an issue TBL is about to
          SW: We are likely to be looking at this document at ftf

          For the record: I am substantially uncomfortable with
          [13]http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-authority because I don't
          understand what normative effect it would have on the behavior
          of implementors. If none, lose it. If some, specifiy it.

     [13] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-authority

          keep in mind web arch impacts folks that read and write
          documents, not just coders, tim bray

          (not to say I'm 100% happy with #URI-authority section as

   The following discussion took place at the end of the meeting.


          TB: Things that we need to worry about (e.g., Chap 4 still

          "2.3. URI Authority"

          TB: I think we need time at ftf to talk about sections 2.3 and

          "3.2.1. Desirable Characteristics of Format Specifications"

 Final-form v. Reusable conflicts in some ways with

          Check out:

     [14] http://www.w3.org/People/Bos/DesignGuide/introduction

          Ok, so we have a commitment to put it on but nothing to
          reference yet.

          IJ: I'd prune this section. Also, some of this text not
          specific to Web arch.

          DanCon, you wanted to note xlinkScope-23 has a home in "3.2.4.
          Embedding Hyperlinks in Representations"

          DC: I see xlinkscope has a home in 3.2.4
          IJ: I think CL is working on too much stuff right now.
          CL actions include: error handling, content/presentation

  2.2 Findings

   See also: [15]findings.

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings

  2.2.1 contentTypeOverride-24

     * [16]Client handling of MIME headers; see [17]summary of comments.
         1. Action SW 2003/06/23: Talk to Voice Browser WG about proposed
            text, then bring back to TAG.
         2. Completed action IJ 2003/06/16: Add to draft finding
            discussion about servers not guessing header information
            (e.g., charset). Completed in 25 June draft of finding.
         3. Completed aaction IJ 2003/06/23: Revise finding based on
            discussion of 23 June TAG teleconf. ([18]Done)

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0099.html
     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0071.html

          IJ: Next steps? Does anyone want to read before we say "We
          think we're done"?
          CL: Has the SMIL IG been contacted?
          IJ: No.

          Scenario 2 in Section 2 has funny formatting; grey surround-box

          Action CL, NW: Read this draft by next week.

          i will review it (skimmed but not read in detail)

          DC: Should this go to public-tag-announce?
          SW: I hesitate. People reading minutes will see this

          if people want to discuss it that should happen on www-tag

          Action IJ: Announce on www-tag that we expect to approve this
          finding in a week or so. Last chance for comments.

          this is also relevant to the error handling issue

  2.2.2 xmlIdSemantics-32

     * [19]How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML
       languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD?

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html

          CL: I haven't completely updated. But nearly done. We should
          update with latest info.
          SW: Should we offer an opinion?

          "No conclusion is presented." --

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDsemantics-32.html

          CL: The XML Core WG has been discussing this. I don't think we
          should pick a favorite from the TAG.
          NW: I agree with CL on that point The Core WG is working on
          IJ: Next steps?
          Action CL: Revise this draft finding with new input from
          reviewers. 7 July Deadline.

   The TAG did not discuss the following at this meeting:
     * [21]URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET and POST; see
       [22]summary of comments. See also [23]comments from Larry
          + [24]whenToUseGet-7
               o Next step for [25]revised draft finding?
               o Action IJ 2003/06/23: Incorporate a sentence about scope
                 based on LM comments.
     * Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a draft finding on
     * Action SW 2003/06/02: Continue work on and make available a draft
       finding related to the opacity of URIs.
     * Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn [26]TB apple story into a finding.

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030509.html
     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0099.html
     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0104.html
     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7-20020610.html
     [26] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/30/AppleWA

  2.3 Issues the TAG intends to discuss (45 mins)

   The TAG expects to do a walk-through of the open and pending
   [27]issues in order to determine:
    1. Is this issue nearly closed?
    2. Do we want to close this issue before going to last call?
    3. Do we want to discuss this issue at the face-to-face meeting?

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html

   See [28]summary from Stuart.
     * [29]URIEquivalence-15
          + SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [30]Tim Bray text has
            been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
            issue to pending state.

     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jun/0095.html
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [30] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4


          TB: Pending, since RFC2396bis not finished. There was never a
          formal expression from TAG on those drafts. But every issue
          that arose we hammered out.
          [Question of whether we should have a finding to close off the
          TB: I don't think we should.
          CL: Mark your drafts as obsoleted.


     [31] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4

          TBL: DC made a comment in a meeting with which I agreed - there
          are some axioms about resolution of relative URis that are not
          written in rfc2396bis.
          DC: I do worry about that.
          TBL: Normalization of "../" and "./" for example. Need a
          statement about invariants.
          SW: I suggest you raise an issue with RF on the URI list.
          TB: W.r.t. last call, I think we have a dependence on
          RFC2396bis. We are stuck with a reference to a moving target
          for now...
          [Some agreement that not much need for ftf time on this issue.]

          15 | Yes | No # my summary
          If there's spare time, I'd like to, but don't squeeze something
          else off.

     * [32]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 [33]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html


          DC: I think that LM did the comparison that we asked RF to do.


     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html

          DC: I think that msg merits discussion. Not sure whether in the
          path to last call. The business about why not create a new URI
          scheme is relevant here. Suppose ldap were being designed
          today. They could design a new protocol and make a new URI
          scheme. Or they could use HTTP as a substrate. The principle
          about don't make up new URI schemes and HTTP as substrate are
          TB: While that's fair, I think that our comments are
          sufficiently general so that we don't need to change anything.
          If we want to provide information about when it is worth the
          cost, that might be ok.

   [DanCon] I'd like to know Orchard's sense of propority of

   16 - Resolve for last call: No. Discussion at ftf: Spare time.
     * [35]errorHandling-20
          + Action CL 2003/02/06: Write a draft finding on the topic of
            (1) early/late detection of errors (2) late/early binding (3)
            robustness (4) definition of errors (5) recovery once error
            has been signaled. Due first week of March.

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#errorHandling-20

          See [36]Notes from Chris Lilley.
          CL: "Ignorability" is something I'd like to discuss. If you get
          a file and it has an attribute in a namespace that you are
          supposed to understand, then that's an error. But if you add
          your own attribute in your own namespace, considered good way
          to extend. I think we should stay clear of extensions to XML.
          TB: Some errors depend on application... In 3.2.1 of latest
          arch doc, bullet on attention to error handling.

     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jun/0099.html

          dan - yes, the notes say that and give examples of harm from
          silent recovery and attempted recovery

          TB: We might put something in section on XML...I would kind of
          be inclined to declare victory based on what's in 3.2.1

          DanCon, you wanted to say I'd like "silent recovery from errors
          considered harmful" in this last-call draft

          DC: What I want in the last call draft is that "Silent recovery
          from error is harmful" to be in a box; critical for last call.
          CL: Notes that I sent in gave some examples of bad consequences
          of silent recovery.
          [CL cites example of browsers that consider </p> an error and
          treat it as <p>, so extra vertical space]

          timbl, you wanted to suggest we have said a bit too much about
          errors - one cannot tell people what to do if they do have an

          aha - be careful what specs say about errors, that sort of

          TBL: I'm concerned about going too far in direction of saying
          how to design an application.

          carefully distinguish from errors (fatal) and warnings

          I share timbl's concern. I still stand by "silent recovery from
          errors considered harmful"

          [TBL cites example of inconsistent RDF; application-dependent

          at user option is no use in a batch job - good point TimBL

          TBL: I don't like the SGML attitude of specifying the behavior
          of an agent. Just say what the tags mean. Don't tie down specs
          with overly narrow error-handling requirements.

          TBray, you wanted to agree with Dan about getting "silent
          failure considered harmful" into webarch before last call

          TB: I think we have consensus that "silent recovery from
          errors" is probably bad behavior in the context of web arch.

          have separate conformance reuirements for correct docs, correct
          generators, and correct readers

          TB: I'd like to spend some time at ftf meeting on this.

          and correct user agents a s asubset of readers

          TB: XML's "halt and catch fire" might have been too much...
          DC: I second talking about ftf.
          CL: Not sure this is in the way of last call. Yes to discussion
          at ftf

          I think we might end up splitting it in half and closing one

          TB: This one might not require a finding.


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

          CL: Specs, in the conformance section should be clear about
          when they are talking about documents, generators, and

          "What should specifications say about error handling?"

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#errorHandling-20

   20: Schedule at ftf, try to close before last call.

     * [39]xlinkScope-23
          + Status report?
          + See [40]draft, and [41]SW message to CG chairs.

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
     [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
     [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104


          SW: Last action was to write to HTCG and XML Core WG. I've had
          no feedback from either group.
          CL: The XML CG has discussed. A task force to be created. The
          HTCG has discussed briefly. Some people seem interested....3/4
          of a task force formed...

          Suggest not on critical path for last cal

          CL: Moving forward, but not much momentum.
          Action CL: Ping the chairs of those groups asking for an update
          on xlinkScope-23.
          SW: I set expectations that TAG would have a last look.
          DC to TBL: Is what's going on with xlinkScope-23 consistent
          with your expectations?

          From: [42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
          " We believe that since we last considered this issue, there
          has been substantially more input to the discussion, and thus
          we will commit
          to taking up the issue once again and, should we achieve
          consensus, publish
          that position as our contribution to work in this area."

     [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104

          TBL: I have the feeling that the way this will be resolved
          "nicely" is a new version of xlink or hlink that is simpler.
          DC: My opinion is "no" and "no" (for 23)
          CL: I agree with "no" and "no"

     * [43]contentTypeOverride-24
          + Next step on finding "[44]Client handling of MIME headers"
          + [45]Speech Recognition Grammar Specification Version 1.0,
            section [46]2.2.2 External Reference by URI
          + Completed action TB 2003/06/23: Ask www-tag for info about
            security whole related to contentTypeOverride.
          + Completed action IJ 2003/06/23: Update finding based on
            comments from 16, 23 June teleconfs. ([47]done)

     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [45] http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-grammar/
     [46] http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-grammar/#S2.2.2
     [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20030625


          SW: I think we'll have this resolved for last call. Probably
          don't need to discuss at ftf.

   [DanCon] on 24, I suggest yes for lc, no for ftf. (what Stuart just

     * [48]contentPresentation-26
          + Action CL 2003/02/06: Create a draft finding in this space.
            Due 3 March.

     [48] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26


          CL: I was working on this one today.

          on 26, I guess I'm no for lc, yes for ftf

          CL: I'd like to have some discussion before last call. And
          discussion at ftf since not yet discussed.

          (don't mind trying for 26 for lc)

          CL: The finding I'm writing is a bit wordy.... If we all agree,
          could be slipped in; but don't think it needs to be in before
          last call. But I'd prefer.
          DC: Worth a try.

     * [49]IRIEverywhere-27
          + Action CL 2003/04/07: Revised position statement on use of
            IRIs. CL says to expect this by 21 April.
          + Action TBL 2003/04/28: Explain how existing specifications
            that handle IRIs are inconsistent. [50]TBL draft not yet
            available on www-tag.
          + See TB's[51]proposed step forward on IRI 27.

     [49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
     [50] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0074.html
     [51] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html


          TB: I think that after back and forth, we decided that the IRI
          draft was not cooked enough yet. I don't think we need to solve
          before last call. I don't think we need to discuss at ftf

          Chris, you wanted to talk about a new and related issue

          CL: New and related issue - When do you use URIs for labels for
          [Or should you use strings]
          CL: I've started a writeup on this one...
          SW: I hear "no" and "no" for 27.
          TBL: IRIs extend 15 into IRIs. I think we could even work on
          this independent of IRI spec. Is this urgent?

          yes its urgent, according to the XML activity

          DC: I'd like ftf time on this one.

     * [52]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.

     [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28


          [No actions]
          DC: Please add this to the pile containing 6, 37, 38
          [TBL: And soon-to-be 39]
          DC: "no" and "yes"

     * [53]binaryXML-30
          + Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on
            adding to survey.
          + Next steps to finding? See [54]summary from Chris.

     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
     [54] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html


          CL: I'd like to do a survey for this issue.

          why does this have a "resultion summary" if it's still open? I
          don't see how "draft" would resolve the apprent contradition
          between an issue being in "assigned" state and having a
          "resolution summary". not urgent.

          [Dan, it should say "draft"]
          Summary from CL:
          TBL: I'd like to add OGC to the entry for this issues list.
          SW: No and No

     [55] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html

     * [56]metadataInURI-31
          + Action SW 2003/02/06: Draft finding for this one. See [57]SW
          + See also [58]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
            schemes instead of headers

     [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [57] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003May/0050.html
     [58] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html


          SW: I hope to put out for TAG review this week.
          IJ: Seem slike 31 is low-hanging fruit.
          SW: No, Yes.

     * [59]xmlIDSemantics-32
          + See [60]Chris Lilley draft finding.
            Action NW 2003/05/05: Point Core WG to CL finding once made

     [59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
     [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html


          CL: I suggest we leave in pending. "No", "No"

     * [61]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33

     [61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33


          No, no.

          no no

          CL: I'm happy to have discussion at ftf and write that up.
          TBL: Connects to composable things.

     * [62]xmlFunctions-34
          + Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
            XML Core work. See [63]email from TimBL capturing some of the

     [62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
     [63] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html

   TBL: No, no
     * [64]RDFinXHTML-35

     [64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#RDFinXHTML-35

   DC: No, Yes. There is movement on this; I'd like some ftf time.
     * [65]siteData-36
          + Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36

     [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#siteData-36


          DC, TB: I'd like some ftf time on this.


          TB: I don't think impacts arch doc.
          DC: Agreed

   [Chris] no,no for me

     * [66]abstractComponentRefs-37
          + See [67]issue description from David Orchard. Next steps?
          + Action DO 2003/06/23: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask
            them for their analysis.
     * [68]putMediaType-38

     [66] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [67] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0089.html
     [68] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

   DC: Cluster 6, 28, 37, 38

  2.4 New issues?

   The TAG does not expect to discuss new issues at this meeting.
    1. [69]Summary from Stuart

     [69] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jun/0055.html

  2.5 Issues that have associated action items

     * [70]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
            desideratum ([71]RQ-23).
     * [72]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. See TB's [73]1 June version.
          + Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue,
            pointing to the RDDL Note. See [74]comments from Paul
            regarding TB theses.
          + Refer to draft TAG [75]opinion from Tim Brayon the use of
            URNs for namespace names.
               o RF: Folks assume that because the specs say so, URNs
                 will be persisitent. But persistence is a function of
                 institutional commitment and frequency of use.
     * [76]uriMediaType-9
          + IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
            (see [77]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?]

     [70] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [71] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
     [72] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#namespaceDocument-8
     [73] http://www.tbray.org/tag/rddl/rddl3.html
     [74] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
     [75] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0003.html
     [76] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
     [77] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html

3. 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: 2003/06/30 23:05:51 $

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 19:13:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:59 UTC