- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: 06 May 2003 12:02:04 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello,
The minutes of the 5 May 2003 TAG teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.
_ Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/05-tag-summary.html
=============================================================
Minutes of 5 May 2003 TAG teleconference
1. Administrative
1. Roll call: NW (Chair), RF, DC, DO, CL, IJ (Scribe). Regrets: SW,
PC, TBL, TB
2. Accepted [8]28 Apr teleconference minutes
3. Accepted this [9]agenda
4. Next meeting: 12 May with Voice Browser WG. Possible regrets: DO.
[8] http://www.w3.org/2003/04/28-tagmem-irc
[9] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/05-tag.html
1.1 Meeting planning
* Please register for AC meeting and WWW2003 if you are a speaker.
* TAG virtual meetings 2 and 19 June (no meeting 16 June).
Completed action SW 2003/04/14: Propose meeting times, structure
to TAG. ([10]Done)
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003May/0009.html
1.2 W3C Track Presentation
* [11]W3C track
* Action PC 2003/04/14: Propose TAG's WWW2003 report to TAG. Due 5
May
[To be discussed 12 May]
[11] http://www2003.org/t_www.htm
1.3 TAG report at AC meeting
1. [12]Suggestions for TAG presentation at May AC Meeting from DO and
PC
2. Action DO, CL: Present TAG's AC meeting report to TAG. Due 5 May
[To be discussed 12 May]
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0027.html
2. Technical
1. [13]whenToUseGet-7
2. [14]contentTypeOverride-24
3. [15]uriMediaType-9
4. [16]abstractComponentRefs-37
5. [17]Architecture Document
2.1 whenToUseGet-7
* [18]whenToUseGet-7
+ Solicit review of [19]revised draft finding from IJ?
+ IJ proposal: Take into account DC's comments and then solicit
review.
[18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7-20020610.html
IJ: I propose to accept DC's proposed simplifications (talk about
"read"/"write") and put out for review.
Resolved: IJ can publish get7 finding with DC's suggestions.
Action IJ: Publish revised get7 finding with modifications.
2.2 contentTypeOverride-24
* [20]contentTypeOverride-24
+ Solicit review of [21]draft finding from IJ?
+ Completed action SW, NW 2003/04/17: Read Client handling of
MIME headers. If +2, then IJ will send to www-tag. ([22]Done)
[20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
[21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20030405.html
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0019.html
Action IJ: Send email to the Voice Browser WG.
2.3 uriMediaType-9
* [23]uriMediaType-9
+ Action DC 2003/02/06: Start discussion on
discuss@apps.ietf.org, but not urgent
+ IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
(see [24]email from Chris Lilley).What's required to close
this issue?
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html
[Ian]
DC: I propose to withdraw that action. Chris pointed out in
[25]email that looks like battle over.
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html
[Chris]
nearly over
I gave specific feedback on how to complete it
[Ian]
DC: But in minutes of [26]13 March IETF/W3C teleconf, some
relevant actions taken.
RF: I'm not sure that IETF finished the tasks that CL
requested.
CL: It might be handy if the TAG confirmed my position.: I
suggest the following changes
[26] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/13-ietf-w3c.html#iana-uri
1. The first column should be the subtype string, as now, and
should always link to
[27]http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/typename/subt
ypename
2. The second column should contain, as now, the name of the
format, which is or should be provided for all types.
3. The third column, which does not seem super necessary and
could be omitted, would be a link to the person that
registered that type or wrote the rfc that registered it or
wrote the email that registered it or whatever. I don't see a
lot of use for this, really.
[27] http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/typename/subtypename
RF: I don't think they would disagree; question of resources
perhaps.
CL: We could also point out that these changes would address a
lot of what DanC talks about in his internet draft.
RF: You could suggest changes to the RFC : How they should
maintain their site.
DC: Next sync point for W3C/IETF is 17 June. I propose we
withdraw my action and check in 17 June.
Resolved: DC's action withdrawn on this issue.
Action CL: Propose CL's three changes to registration process
to Ned Freed. [What forum?]
DC: You can find out who's editor of MIME spec that talks about
registration. You could write editors and cc public-ietf-w3c.
[Chris]
[28]http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-mime-p4-00.
txt
[28] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-mime-p4-00.txt
[Ian]
DC: I'll likely ping Ned on this (e.g., one week before) 17
June IETF/W3C meeting.
IJ: Sounds like we're not quite ready to move issue 9 from
pending.
DC: Indeed.
2.4 abstractCompontentRefs-37
* [29]abstractComponentRefs-37
+ See [30]issue description from David Orchard
+ Next steps?
[29] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0089.html
[Ian]
DO: One issue from SW has to do with getting type info out of
the URI. Question of "no metadata in URI". Little traffic
(publicly or privately) expressing preference for various
mechanisms.
CL: I commented on syntax ; use of xpointer.
DO: I understand that there's some question about whether it's
a desirable requirement that the type info be in the URI.
CL: Example in schema: "#" followed by "float".
RF: If you're dealing with polymorphic operators where function
distinguished by type, then you would need something.
[Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to respond to opacity and constraints
[Ian]
DC: Opacity has to do with freedom of choosing URIs.
[Chris]
eg [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#float.minExclusive
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#float.minExclusive
[Ian]
DC: E.g., if you require first path component to be WSDL type,
then you restrict what server manager can do. If you are making
up URIs, then you can say "this part of it is the type"
[DanC]
haven't we agreed that things that have #'s in them are URIs
too?
[Ian]
NW, CL: See also TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
schemes instead of headers
DC: We don't have much good motivation for not making new URI
schemes. Apple folks did it and people seem to be happy. Which
of DO's options is likely to bite me if I ignore it? Has the
WSDL WG picked one?
DO: They picked the one they suggested - namespace + fragid :
8. Use namespace name and new fragment identifier syntax.
[Ian]
DC: I don't hate option 8 all that much.
The sample URI is
"[32]http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/#input(TicketAgent/listFli
ghts/listFlightsRequest)".
RF: Hash marks are usually left to people who have no choice,
not for designers of the media type.
DC: I don't agree that this is a "violation of URI fragment
identifier rules that fragment identifiers are based upon the
media type of the dereferenced content."
DO: If somebody puts a RDDL doc instead of a WSDL doc, the URI
producer will have to use a different URI, depending on the
media type.
DC: The answer then is don't put a RDDL document there. You can
use this syntax and be consistent with the URI spec; but you
can't have all your cakes and eat all of them (i.e., can't also
be able to put a RDDL doc with this same syntax).
NW: If you are relying on use of a frag id, then you'd better
expect to get back a RDDL doc.
[32] http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/#input(TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsR
[DanC]
all roads lead to issue 8. there is no other issue 1/2 ;-)
[Ian]
DO: The consequence is tight coupling between URI syntax and
WSDL doc.
[Chris]
so, we need a sort of double dereference - from a namespace to
a (part of) a rddl document to whatever that part points to///
[Ian]
DO: If you don't use fragids, you might have other probs but
not this particular one.
[DanC]
hmm...
[33]http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/TicketAgent/listFlights/lis
tFlightsRequest
[33] http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequest
[Ian]
RF: Slash characters can't be used for something other than
hierarchy.
[Discussion of option 10]
[DanC]
option 10
([34]http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/TicketAgent/listFlights/li
stFlightsRequest) is inconsistent with timbl's position on
issue 14, which I sympathize with
[34] http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequest
[Ian]
RF: Use of parens is problematic (e.g., if relative URIs used
within 2 ref items).
DC: TBL's position on issue 14 is that if you want to refer to
a non-doc thing, you need to have a "#" in the URI.
[DaveO]
Roy, I think you are saying you'd change
"[35]http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/input(TicketAgent/listFlig
hts/listFlightsRe
quest)"
to
"[36]http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/input/TicketAgent/listFlig
hts/listFlightsRequest" or
"[37]http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/TicketAgent/listFlights/li
stFlightsRequest/input"
[35] http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/input(TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRe
[36] http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/input/TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequest
[37] http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequest/input
[Ian]
DC: It's antisocial to constrain Web site managers to use URIs
in a particular way in order to use your format. Don't tell me,
e.g., that I have to put all WSDL files at the server root.
NW: The proposal would said that the WSDL doc could go anywhere
on the server, but the "/input...." is controlled by the WSDL
spec; not really "on your web server"; these are parameters to
the service.
[Some agreement from DO, DC, NW that that's reasonable]
NW: Is it reasonable to say that wsdl docs and expected
interactions are something server manager would be controlling,
not just any user.
zakim, who's here?
IJ: In option 11, what is problem of "no hierarchy of names":
Can't that be captured in another parameter?
[Norm]
You could have
...ticketagent?service=/TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequ
est
[Ian]
DO: One advantage of putting in a query string is that you can
use relative URIs.
CL: If I have a namespace, doesn't necessarily mean that
everything "below" a piece of path is co-opted by the
namespace. However, with the proposed URIs of option 10, that
part of the path is co-opted.
DC: The same is true with RDF when used with namespaces.
Doesn't blow away space, but allows short local names. There's
an issue on our list about making URI from local name and
namespace name.
(Issue 6)
[DanC]
cf rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 : Algorithm for creating a URI from a
QName?
[38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
[Chris]
Next steps?
drum up more feedback?
get evidence people have read it
[Ian]
DO: Need more input. Maybe straw poll, with deadline.
C: Some of these are just hard issues.. Some people have read
some of the issues, even though we don't have consensus yet.
NW summarizing perceived state of affairs:
1) WSDL group ready to adopt option 8.
2) The TAG needs to register a comment/objection if the TAG
doesn't think 8 is a good idea.
NW: Please be prepared (i.e., read proposals) for discussion
(and I hope closure) at 26 May teleconf.
RF: Once I understand what the goal is, I should have a clearer
position.
[Roy]
I do believe that balanced parens should be avoided
2.5 Architecture document
See also: [39]findings.
1. [40]26 Mar 2003 Working Draft of Arch Doc:
1. Completed action DC 2003/02/06: Attempt a redrafting of 1st
para under [41]2.2.4 of 6 Feb 2003 draft. See [42]request
from DanC to consider this subsumed based on 26 Mar 2003 Arch
Doc text.
2. Action DC 2003/01/27: write two pages on correct and
incorrect application of REST to an actual web page design
3. Action DO 2003/01/27: Please send writings regarding Web
services to tag@w3.org. DO grants DC license to cut and paste
and put into DC writing.
[39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
[40] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030326/
[41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/webarch-20030206#uri-use
[42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0119.html
DO: In progress. I hope that it will be published
by late next week.
4. Action DC 2003/03/17: : Write some text for interactions
chapter of arch doc related to [43]message passing, a dual of
shared state.
[43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Mar/0018.html
[DanC]
IJ: 26Mar draft is now more than a month old...
[Chris]
ij has comments on arch doc from timbl, will incorporate
comments
[DanC]
... I got comments from timbl and Graham Klyne; I responded,
though some of them merit discussiong
[Chris]
ij recalls chris has text, chris not sure what this refers to
no momentum for new draft without new text
could incorporate draft findings, seems early though
not quiter at three month mark, but not ready for last call in
june
[Ian]
IJ: What do people expect to generate for new text?
CL: I agree with IJ that once findings are reviewed/accepted,
that putting conclusions in arch doc a good way to go.
[Chris]
adding conclusions from draft findings 9after some discussion)
is good
[Ian]
DC: Suppose we tried being schedule driven rather than
feature-driven: last call in June with what we've got? Can we
wall off the parts where issues are not resolved?
CL: Let's go through issues list and try to gauge whether we
expect to advance on these issues by the summer.
[Moving on to 2.3]
[Chris]
ie, which issues will make a summer 1.0 arch doc
[Ian]
xlinkScope-23?
[Chris]
nope
[Ian]
CL, NW: Probably not for arch doc 1.0.
NW: I think we can probably proceed without that done for 1.0.
DC: Where does that hurt?
CL: Not static, but lots of dependencies.
[Chris]
To what extent should URIs be used in W3C specifications
[Ian]
IRIEverywhere-27
[Chris]
URIEverywhere-38
[Ian]
CL proposes a new issue: URIEverywhere-38: " To what extent
should URIs be used in W3C specifications?" I think that once
this issue is closed, there will be some effects on
IRIEverywhere-27.
CL: Goal is to separate (1) issues related to IRI spec (2)
issues strictly tied to URIs.
DC: That's issue 15 - URIEquivalence.
CL: Related but not the same.
[Chris]
busy writing this up
[Ian]
NW: I'm uncomfortable with moving the arch doc forward without
some sort of answer re: IRIs. But perhaps we coudl.
[Chris]
agree we should have something in this one for version 1.0
[Ian]
# URIEquivalence-15
DC: I hope we get this one nailed one for arch 1.0. I think
nearly done.
NW: I think we can be optimistic that we can close this one
soon.
DC: I think we need a test suite for URIs (e.g., for
comparison).
[DC said this as URI CG co-chair]
[Chris]
agree that there should be testsuite for uris
[Ian]
DC: I don't have a mandate per the Activity Proposal to do a
test suite for URIs, but I"m considering proposing that again.
RF: I think there may not be many volunteers for a test suite,
but I think nobody would stop DC.
[Chris]
from forthcoming writeup: "A fairly small group of such
identifiers can be included in specifications and in the
associated test suite, with a great benefit to clarity. For
example, see the cases listed at:
[44]http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/#IRIComparison"
xmlIDSemantics-32 is now public, will announce right after the
call
[44] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/#IRIComparison
[Ian]
NW: XML Core WG is actively discussing how to deal with xml:id.
[Chris]
xml core is discussing how to deal with xml:id
[Ian]
Action NW: Point Core WG to CL finding once made public.
NW: I think we should plan a last call for June, with whatever
we've got.
2.6 Issues that have associated action items
* [45]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 [46]comments from Paul
regarding TB theses.
+ Action TB 2003/04/28: Draft a TAG opinion on the use of URNs
for namespace names, for review by the TAG
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.
* [47]xlinkScope-23
+ Status report?
+ See [48]draft, and [49]SW message to CG chairs.
* [50]IRIEverywhere-27
+ Completed action TB 2003/04/14: Draft a proposed step forward
on IRI 27. ([51]Done). In that [52]email, TB proposes to
close this issue.
+ 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. (Action unclear from 28
Apr minutes).
* [53]URIEquivalence-15
+ SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [54]Tim Bray text has
been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
issue to pending state.
* [55]xmlIDSemantics-32
+ See [56]Chris Lilley draft finding. Next steps?
* [57]siteData-36
+ Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36
* [58]xmlFunctions-34
+ Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
XML Core work. See [59]email from TimBL capturing some of the
issues.
* [60]binaryXML-30
+ Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on
adding to survey.
+ Next steps to finding? See [61]summary from Chris.
* [62]contentPresentation-26
+ Action CL 2003/02/06: Create a draft finding in this space.
Due 3 March.
* [63]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
+ Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
desideratum ([64]RQ-23).
* [65]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 [66]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
* [67]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.
* [68]metadataInURI-31
+ Action SW 2003/02/06: Draft finding for this one.
+ See also [69]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
schemes instead of headers
* [70]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.
[45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#namespaceDocument-8
[46] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
[47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
[48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
[49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
[50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
[51] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html
[52] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html
[53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
[54] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4
[55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
[56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
[57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#siteData-36
[58] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
[59] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html
[60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
[61] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
[62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
[63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
[64] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
[65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
[66] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
[67] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#errorHandling-20
[68] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
[69] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html
[70] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
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
May.
_________________________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs for Norm Walsh and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2003/05/06 15:56:58 $
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 12:02:11 UTC