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

[Minutes] 3 Nov 2003 TAG teleconf (mtg planning, 3023 status, webarch actions, xml versioning)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 03 Nov 2003 18:02:42 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Cc: public-tag-announce@w3.org
Message-Id: <1067900562.31560.102.camel@seabright>

The minutes of the TAG's 3 Nov 2003 teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/11/03-tag-summary.html


    Minutes of 3 November 2003 TAG teleconference

1. Administrative (15min)

    1. Roll call: SW (Chair), NW, DO, TB, CL, RF, IJ (Scribe). Regrets:
       DC, TBL. Unknown: PC
    2. We did not accept the minutes of the [9]27 Oct teleconference
       since there were holes in it.
       Action IJ: Ping DO and PC for help filling in the blanks.
    3. Accepted this [10]agenda.
    4. Next meeting: 10 Nov 2003 teleconference. Possible regrets: CL.
       Expected agenda: arch doc review, AC mtg slide review.

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/10/27-tag-summary.html
     [10] http://www.w3.org/2003/11/03-tag.html

  1.1 TAG update at Nov 2003 AC meeting.

    1. Action CL 2003/10/27: incorporate input on AC slides and produce
       another draft.
       CL: I expect to have these slides to the TAG by Thursday, 6 Nov.
    2. Resolved: DO and CL will give the TAG report at the AC meeting.

          dealt with (what I remember to be) PCs comment about stressing
          liaison and delegation
          put that up front in the slides
          moved election details to last slide as a reminder
          middle portion is as per David's slides
          cutting summaries to save time, and pointing to web site for
          further detail

  1.2 TAG Nov face-to-face meeting agenda

    1. [11]Meeting page. SW reminds TAG to register for meeting.
    2. TB will attend, but not Monday.

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2003/11/15-tag-mtg.html


          SW: Please send email reviews to list to drive the agenda.
          IJ: Will we talk about [12]formal model be part of mtg agenda?
          TBray: You need to sell this first. Are you planning for this
          to appear in the appendix?
          IJ: Ideally, yes.
          TBray: Then you're going to have to sell it. Secondly, we'd
          need some toolware. We'd need discussion on what the benefits
          are. Also, the priority is to go to last call; I'd be nervous
          about introducing a major element so late.

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0059.html

          IJ: I will see to it that the diagram gets done before the ftf

2. Technical (75min)

    1. Review of 3023-related actions
    2. Review of Architecture Document writing assignments
    3. XML Versioning
    4. Syntax-based interoperability
    5. deepLinking-25

  2.1 Review of 3023-related actions

   Action CL 2003/10/27: Draft XML mime type thingy with Murata-san.


          CL: Murata-san indicated that he would work on a revision.
          There was some discussion about where this should take place
          (presumably IETF process). The bone of contention is around
          charset. We are working on reaching consensus around that.
          TBray: I think fragments are the big bone of contention. Plus
          you have to coordinate with XML Core.
          [CL discusses various issues regarding handling of fragments.]
          TBray: I would expect you have work for a few months.
          SW: Any strong prefs on where discussed?
          CL, TB: I'm ok with ietf-xml-mime.
          SW: Me too
          CL: I'd like to keep the TAG in the loop.
          TBray: I'm on the list, too. The more we have to deal with
          fragments, the longer this will take.

   Completed actions 2003/10/08:
    1. NW to liaise with Paul Grosso and the XML Core WG
    2. TBL and DC to liaise with the IETF regarding obsoleting RFC 3023.
    3. TB to talk to authors of 3023 about inclusion as appendix in xml

   Open action 2003/10/08:
    1. TBL and DC will talk to the Architecture Domain Lead.

  2.2 Review of Architecture Document writing assignments

   Comments on [13]27 Oct 2003 WD of the Arch Doc?

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20031027/

   Recent action items:


         1. Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Write up a paragraph for
            section 3 on syntax-based interoperability. ([14]done). See
            also [15]comments from Mike Champion.
            TB: I'd be more comfortable with [16]DC's two-paragraph text
            than what's in 27 Oct draft.
            CL: Syntax is a major contributor to interoperability, not
            sufficient of itself.
         2. Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Write a paragraph of
            rationale for why error handling good in the context of the
            Web. ([17]done)
            TB: I am troubled that we lost a statement that one reason
            the web works well is that error handling was part of web
            from early on. Say that "Our experience shows that specified
            error handling has enabled the Web to grow."
         3. Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Propose a revised paragraph
            to replace the "Furthermore" sentence in section 2.3
            TB: I'm OK with Ian's handling of my text

     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0036.html
     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0084.html
     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0142.html
     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0037.html
     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0038.html


         1. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Add ed note to abstract that
            the abstract will be rewritten.
         2. Action IJ 2003/10/08: Starting from DO's diagram, create a
            diagram where the relationships and terms are linked back to
            the context where defined. Ensure that the relationships are
            in fact used in the narrative; any gaps identified? With DO,
            work on term relationship diagram.
         3. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Draft good practice note for
         4. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: In 2.4, add story that shows
            how two classes of error can arise (inconsistency v. no frag
            id semantics defined). Frame story in terms of secondary
         5. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Split persistency section
            into two and move http redirection para there, with
            appropriate rewrites.
         6. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Update OWL ref since in CR
         7. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Add a future work section for
            identifiers that the TAG expects to summarize various URI
            schemes and what agents can infer from the scheme.


         1. Completed action DO,NW 2003/10/08: Make the summary to
            replace 4.5 Extensibility and Versioning in the arch doc

     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0137.html


         1. Action CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of
            language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.


         1. Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Write up text on information
            hiding/abstraction respect for before 2/3/4. ([20]done)
         2. Action NW 2003/10/08: Revise QName finding. We will also add
            those two good practice notes to section 2:
              1. If you use Qnames, provide a mapping to URIs.
              2. Don't define an attribute that can take either a URI or
                 a Qname since they are not syntactically
            NW: I expect I'll revise the finding some time today.
         3. Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Rewrite the last paragraph of
            4.9.2 to be less inflammatory about DTDs ([21]done)
         4. Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Massage three paragraphs
            following good practice note about persistency at beginning
            of 2.6. ([22]done)

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0042.html
     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0043.html
     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0047.html


         1. Action RF 2003/10/08: Explain "identifies" in RFC 2396.
            RF: I'm working on that this week.


         1. Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about
            extensibility related to "when to tunnel".


         1. Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5
            showing examples of freenet and other systems. Progress; see

     [23] http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes_2ffreenet

  2.3 XML Versioning

   Current draft is [24]3 Oct 2003 finding
    1. Proposed: Add an issue to the TAG issues list: XMLVersioning-41 to
       help track this.
    2. Publication of which draft as draft finding?

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-20031003


          NW: There's been discussion, pushback on certain sections. I've
          been working on terminology and definitions. I am starting to
          feel like we should either get more feedback or put into arch
          doc to review in situ.
          SW: I sent comments to NW and DO (off list)

          I thought the latest plan was to incorporate the latest version
          (which norm sent out last week) into the arch doc as-is...

          TBray: It's really long; it would increase the arch doc by 25%.
          NW: At this point, I would appreciate a fresh set of eyeballs
          to cut it down.
          TBray: I can't take a position on inclusion until I've read it.

          I'll point out that about 1/8 is overhead for boilerplate,
          abstract, etc.

          IJ: I can read it. I also propose to write a precis of 4-5
          paragraphs for inclusion in the arch doc.
          [Support for that proposal.]
          IJ: I will liaise with DO on this, of course.
          NW: I won't have time to revise finding before ftf meeting.
          DO: Are concerns about lengthy material (1) hard to read (2)
          adds too much late in the game (3) needs editing.

          TBray: I think that this text goes into much more detail than
          other parts of the arch doc. The question is whether the
          proposed text is too heavy. I need to review it before making
          more comments.

          NW: I'm willing to help IJ work on reducing amount of text.
          DO: I want to push back on removing some of the good practices.
          I think they are all worthwhile; some editing may be
          Action IJ: Review XML Versioning text, propose a shortened form
          to DO and NW for their consideration, including good practice
          Resolved: Add an issue to the TAG issues list: XMLVersioning-41
          to help track

          Action IJ: Add this issue to TAG issues list.

          DO: Can we do a quickie update of the status section that our
          thinking may have changed?

          NW: I can do a properly dated finding out with some status

          IJ: Please chat with me about URIs.

  2.4 Syntax-based interoperability

    1. Long thread starting with [25]proposal from TB
    2. See tentative text in section 1.2.4 of 27 Oct draft. Needs review

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0036.html

  2.5 Deep-linking 25

     * [26]deepLinking-25
         1. Action IJ 2003/09/15: Take back to Comm Team publicity of
            this finding.
            IJ: Janet Daly suggested that if we want publicity, we should
            publish as a Working Group Note.
            Action IJ: Invite Janet to TAG's ftf meeting in Japan.

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#deepLinking-25


   The TAG does not expect to cover these issues

  2.5 Findings

   See also [27]TAG findings home page.
     * [28]whenToUseGet-7: Finding: [29]URIs, Addressability, and the use
       of HTTP GET and POST
     * [30]contentPresentation-26: Draft finding: [31]Separation of
       semantic and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
       architecturally sound
     * [32]contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of [33]Client
       handling of MIME headers
         1. Completed action RF 2003/09/15: Proposed substitute text in
            light of [34]previous comments on charset param. ([35]Done)
         2. [36]Comments from Philipp Hoschka about usability issues when
            user involved in error correction. Is there a new Voice spec
            out we can point to for example behavior?
         3. [37]Comments from Chris Lilley
         4. Lots of [38]comments from Martin Duerst
     * [39]metadataInURI-31

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings/
     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030922
     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0051.html
     [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0043.html
     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0076.html
     [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0113.html
     [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0108.html
     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31

    2.2.1 Expected new findings

     * [40]siteData-36
     * [41]abstractComponentRefs-37
       Action IJ: Publish DO's latest draft in finding format.

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37


    Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2003/11/03 22:42:14 $

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Monday, 3 November 2003 18:03:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:02 UTC