[Minutes] 20 Oct 2003 TAG teleconf (abstractComponentRefs-37, URI Syntax, RFC 3023)


Minutes from the 20 Oct 2003 TAG teleconference are
available as HTML [1] and as text below.

 _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/10/20-tag-summary.html

                 Minutes of 20 October 2003 TAG teleconference

   Nearby: [4]IRC log | [5]Teleconference details  [6]issues list
   ([7]handling new issues) [8]www-tag archive

      [4] http://www.w3.org/2003/10/20-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/Member/tag/2003Jul/0054.html
      [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/

   Note: The Chair does not expect the agenda to change after close of
   business (Boston time) Thursday of this week.

1. Administrative (15min)

    1. Roll call: NW (Chair), TBL, TB, DO, PC, RF, CL, IJ (Scribe).
       Regrets: SW, DC.
    2. Accepted the minutes of the [9]6-8 Oct ftf in Bristol
    3. Accepted this [10]agenda
    4. Next meeting: 27 Oct 2003 teleconference. Regrets: TB, IJ. PC at
    5. Reminder: Action items related to Arch Document due 22 October.
       People reconfirmed that they would be able to complete their

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/10/06-tag-summary.html
     [10] http://www.w3.org/2003/10/20-tag.html

   Upcoming meeting topics:
     * 27 Oct:
          + Draft finding from NW and DO: [11]Versioning XML Languages,
            18 Sep draft. What to include in arch doc?
          + Discuss AC meeting presentation
     * 10 Nov: Last meeting to review Arch Doc with possibility of action

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning

  1.1 TAG update at Nov 2003 AC meeting.

    1. Completed action SW 2003/09/29: Draft summary based on monthly
       reports from previous six months (for AC meeting). See
       [12]previous highlights.
    2. Completed Action DO, CL 2003/10/07: Draft presentation for the AC
       meeting ([13]Done)

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/19-sb-COO-Summary.html#Technical2
     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Oct/0062.html

   Action DO, CL 2003/10/20: Produce draft slides for AC presentation;
   for discussion at 27 Oct teleconference.

2. Technical (75min)

    1. [14]abstractComponentRefs-37
    2. [15]Review of 3023-related actions
    3. [16]Review of Architecture Document writing assignments

  2.1 abstractComponentRefs-37

     * [17]abstractComponentRefs-37: [18]Draft finding
          + Completed action DO 2003/10/08: Write up resolution from 8
            Oct 2003 meeting and include in finding on this topic.

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0027.html
     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0027.html


          [Background on draft finding from DO]
          TBray: There needs to be more structure of this document to
          point out (1) here's what we think you should do (2) here's the
          raw data. Not clear why raw data there. I think it's useful to
          have that data there.
          IJ: Should I publish this on the W3C site?
          DO: Yes, after my next round of updates.

          IJ: My suggestions for the finding:

         1. Create an acknowledgments section. Move references to people
            who have contributed to this project to the acks section.
            Leave only technical material in the heart of the document.
         2. The information that is time-sensitive (e.g., "The TAG is
            currently....") belongs either in the status section of the
            document or in a separate section on ongoing work. Please
            separate that from the technical issues which do not depend
            on what the TAG is currently doing.
         3. Section 2.1 refers to "Requirements" but I believe these are
            the requirements initially set forth by the WSDL WG. These
            aren't TAG requirements. Furthermore, it's not clear whether
            any or all of the solutions in the solution space conform to
            the requirements. I think it may be better if, after
            discussion of the solution space, there is an indication of
            which, if any of the proposed solutions conform to the WSDL
            WG's original requirements. I think you could even remove the
            list of requirements and just include a link to some
            published statement of the requirements. In short, I don't
            think the requirements need much presence in the finding.
         4. The finding does not state clearly what an abstract component
            is. It also doesn't explain what the problem is: why are
            references to abstract components trickier than others?
            Please include a story nearer to the front of the document
            (e.g., after the summary of principles)..

    Discussion about balanced parentheses in fragment identifier syntax

   At this point, discussion shifted from the finding to the question of
          the relationship between the finding, the [20]xpointer syntax,
          and previous statements from Roy Fielding about the use of
          balanced parentheses in frag identifier syntax. There were no
          additional comments on DO's first draft of the finding.

     [20] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/#syntax

          CL: Re balanced parens; are we saying that in general balanced
          parens are bad in URIs?
          RF: Yes
          CL: In that case, we have some problems with xpointer

          PointerPart ::= SchemeName '(' SchemeData ')'
          EscapedData ::= NormalChar | '^(' | '^)' | '^^' | '('
          SchemeData ')'

          is broken, as stated earlier

          TBray: Roy has publicly flamed xpointer in the past.

          so we are saying, as the TAG, that XPointer Framework and
          dependent specs are *broken*? or not?

          DO: Hence wording in the finding - I don't think that the TAG
          has made an explicit recommendation that xpointer is broken.
          Some TAG participants have said that balanced parens are a bad
          idea. Some of the participants have agreed, or not actively
          pushed back.
          RF: I've seen many bad designs in which parens are used; I've
          seen no designs that actually required parentheses. I've seen
          some cases where parens were used *internally*, but not
          exposed. Xpointer produces invalid fragments since the URI spec
          does not allow those characters.

          RF: xptr spec uses illegal characters not allowed in fragment
          cl: however, the syntax used in XML will be escaped when used
          on the wire as per usual

          CL: I have concerns that some folks on the TAG feel a recent
          W3C Rec is broken. And that the finding uses the xpointer
          syntax. I'd be ok pointing out (1) this is the syntax and (2)
          there are problems with it.
          RF: I'm ok with presentation as is in the draft finding.
          DO: Maybe the TAG should have an issue on parens in frag
          identifier syntax; tied to xpointer.
          CL: This affects SVG as well, which has its own fragment

          which uses parens as per what was believed to be correct
          current practice

          DO: I'm not sure that we would recommend xpointer to wsdl wg
          even if we said parens ok. Do we want a finding on good URI
          CL, TB: Yes.
          [TB seeks title for issue regarding URI design]

          [21]http://www.w3.org/XML/Linking has no link to an
          implementation report

     [21] http://www.w3.org/XML/Linking

          PC: Has anyone done this work on best practices for URI design?
          RF: It's not in the spec (since hard to get consensus on
          PC: I'm concerned that, while useful, documenting good practice
          might be too much of a challenge.
          RF: The info is there, in various places. Some info is in
          [22]TBL's DesignIssues. If I get excited, I'll add as an
          appendix of RFC2396 bis
          DO: Should the TAG start on this and then fold into RFC2396?
          RF: It's always useful to seed the clouds, but people tend NOT
          to agree on how to design a URI space. They tend to not agree
          TB: Look at what Vignette does and don't do that.
          IJ to self: This is also related to URI-squatting.
          DO: Even enumeration of choices (even if some agree, some
          don't) still useful. Another survey..
          RF: Also sounds like arch doc.

     [22] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/

          Principles: don't put in the name of the product e.g.

          DO: Hmm, seems like finding a better place for this level of
          detail rather than in arch doc, especially if the material is

          Principle: consider putting in dates

          TBray: I think that we should adopt this as an issue: "What are
          good practices for URI construction?"

          I will take that as an action item

          Resolved: Add issue URIGoodPractice-40
          Action IJ: Add to issues list.
          Action RF: Draft finding for this issue.
          NW: This should allow DO to simplify his finding a little.
          NW: Is this in the critical path for last call?
          [Nobody thinks it is.]

  2.2 Review of 3023-related actions

          Actions 2003/10/08:
          - NW to liaise with Paul Grosso and the XML Core WG
          - TBL and DC to liaise with the IETF regarding obsoleting RFC
          - TB to talk to authors of 3023 about inclusion as appendix in
          xml 1.1.
          - TBL and DC will talk to the Architecture Domain Lead.


          [TB update on action items]

          NW: I spoke to the Core WG about this last Weds. There was
          general agreement that a revision of 3023 would be a good
          thing, and that XML 1.1 should point to an updated version. In
          addition, the Core WG felt it would be nice if 3023 used
          xpointer syntax for frag ids for xml. I told them that the TAG
          was unlikely to push for that.

          - TBL and DC to liaise with the IETF regarding obsoleting RFC
          TBL: We talked to the IETF about this
          CL: There was discussion at the XML CG teleconference about
          this ([23]minutes)

     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2003Oct/0021.html

          TBL: Good direction in general, but not for this iteration of
          XML 1.1. Happy to leave it in son-of-3023 this time round. Does
          tag have an opinion on that, xml fragid syntax? People use
          barename id pointers currently

          I would prefer that the "id" issue be settled first.

          TB: People do not use application/xml they use a more specific
          type (docbook, svg, whatever).
          NW: I'm in favor of having a generic fragment syntax to prevent
          each one having to define the same minimum stuff. Like xptr
          framework syntax.
          TB: So no consensus on what the pointer should be or whether it
          is needed?

          - TB to talk to authors of 3023 about inclusion as appendix in
          xml 1.1.
          TBray: I'm less optimistic about getting this revised. I talked
          to the editors: Simon is not keen to work on a revision;
          MURATA-SAN wants to wait until W3C has a policy on charsets.
          Dan Kohn no longer active in this area..

          TB: arch doc says 3023 is wrong, simon says "and?"

          TBray: I think we have made our position clear; it's written up
          in arch doc; there's not much else we can do.
          RF: You can write a short draft and publish it as a proposed
          std. Have the RFC editor mark 3023 as updated. You don't need
          the original editors to write an update spec. I'll point CL out
          some examples (e.g., RFC 2732).

          TBray: For formatting document, check out "xml2rfc" tool, just
          type that into Google.

          RF: Or see [24]XSLT for RFC generation.

     [24] http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/

          Action CL: Draft update to 3023 for review by the TAG (on

  2.3 Review of Architecture Document writing assignments

   Latest draft is the [25]1 Oct 2003 WD of the Arch Doc.

     [25] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031001/

   The TAG revised action items; none were completed. People are
   nonetheless confident that they will complete their actions by 22 Oct.


         1. Action TB 2003/10/08: Write up a paragraph for section 3 on
            syntax-based interoperability.
         2. Action TB 2003/10/08: Write a paragraph of rationale for why
            error handling good in the context of the Web.
         3. Action TB 2003/10/08: Propose a revised paragraph to replace
            the "Furthermore" sentence in section 2.3


         1. Completed action SW: Send to IJ draft diagrams


         1. 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. Action IJ 2003/10/08: Draft good practice note for 4.4.
         4. 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. Action IJ 2003/10/08: Split persistency section into two and
            move http redirection para there, with appropriate rewrites.
         6. Action IJ 2003/10/08: Update OWL ref since in CR
         7. 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. Action DO,NW 2003/10/08: Make the summary to replace 4.5
            Extensibility and Versioning in the arch doc


         1. Action CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of
            language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.
            CL: Progress. I'll send new text; see also IRC log.


         1. Action NW 2003/10/08: Write up text on information
            hiding/abstraction respect for before 2/3/4.
         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
         3. Action NW 2003/10/08: Rewrite the last paragraph of 4.9.2 to
            be less inflammatory about DTDs
         4. Action NW 2003/10/08: Massage three paragraphs following good
            practice note about persistency at beginning of 2.6.


         1. Action RF 2003/10/08: Explain "identifies" in RFC 2396.
            RF: In the Arch Doc, just remove '(i.e., name)'.


         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

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

   IJ talked about modeling Web Arch in OWL
          IJ: I have been doing desxcription in OWL
          TBray: I'd prefer circles and arrows diagrams to UML.
          DO: We'd only be using a small piece of UML.
          IJ: I would like to get TBL to work with me on this offline.

          I guess it should be stated for the record that moving from
          visio as I proposed to OWL for diagrams effectively cuts me out
          of being able to edit said diagrams. I am concerned that this
          will set a default for all future diagrams, such as the
          extensibility/versioning diagram.

          IJ: I think that RF's action is not critical path. What about
          TBL's action from July?
          TBL: Please don't drop this action.


   The TAG did not 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
          + Action DC 2003/09/15: Provide TAG with pointers into WS specs
            where issue of safe operations is manifest.
          + Action DO 2003/09/15: Ask WSDL WG to look at finding; ask
            them if marking operations as safe in WSDL is one of their
          + See [30]comments from Noah, however.
     * [31]contentPresentation-26: Draft finding: [32]Separation of
       semantic and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
       architecturally sound
          + Action CL 2003/10/08: Talk with others about aspects of this
            finding and revise it.
     * [33]contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of [34]Client
       handling of MIME headers
         1. Completed action RF 2003/09/15: Proposed substitute text in
            light of [35]previous comments on charset param. ([36]Done)
         2. [37]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. [38]Comments from Chris Lilley
         4. Lots of [39]comments from Martin Duerst
         5. Action IJ 2003/10/08: Produce a new draft of the finding that
            takes into account comments from reviewers on MIME finding.
     * [40]metadataInURI-31: 8 July 2003 draft of "[41]The use of
       Metadata in URIs"
          + Action SW 2003/07/21: Produce a revision of this finding
            based on Vancouver ftf meeting discussion.
          + Action DO 2003/07/07: Send rationale about why WSDL WG wants
            to peek inside the URI.
          + See also [42]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
            schemes instead of headers
          + See comments from [43]Mark Nottingham and [44]followup from
            Noah M.
     * [45]11 Sep 2003 draft of Deep Linking in the WWW
          + Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Republish as accepted and
            signal to person who raised the issue (Michael Kay).
          + Pending action IJ 2003/09/15: Take back to Comm Team
            publicity of this document

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings/
     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030922
     [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0160.html
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0051.html
     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0043.html
     [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0076.html
     [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0113.html
     [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0108.html
     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31
     [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html
     [43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0048.html
     [44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0055.html
     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/deeplinking-20030911.html

    2.2.1 Expected new findings

     * [46]siteData-36
          + Action TB 2003/10/08: Refine strawman from 8 Oct 2003 meeting
            and draft finding.
     * [47]abstractComponentRefs-37: [48]Summary of options from DO
          + Action DO 2003/10/08: Write up resolution from 8 Oct 2003
            meeting and include in finding on this topic.

     [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36
     [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0054.html

  2.6 Issues

   The TAG does not expect to discuss these issues at this meeting.

    2.6.1 Identifiers ([49]URIEquivalence-15 , [50]IRIEverywhere-27)

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

     * [51]URIEquivalence-15
          + SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [52]Tim Bray text has
            been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
            issue to pending state.
     * [53]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. [54]TBL draft not yet
            available on www-tag.
          + See TB's [55]proposed step forward on IRI 27.

     [51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [52] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4
     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
     [54] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0074.html
     [55] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html

    2.6.2 Qnames, fragments, and media types([56]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6,
    [57]fragmentInXML-28, [58]abstractComponentRefs-37, [59]putMediaType-38)

     [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [58] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

     * [60]xmlIDSemantics-32:[61]Chris Lilley draft finding.
          + The TAG is monitoring the Core WG's progress on this issue.
     * [62]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
            desideratum ([63]RQ-23).
     * [64]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.
     * [65]putMediaType-38

     [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
     [61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
     [62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [63] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
     [64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

    2.6.3 New and other Issues requested for discussion.
    ([66]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33, [67]RDFinXHTML-35, [68]siteData-36 plus
    possible new issues)

     [66] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     [67] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
     [68] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36

   Existing Issues:
     * [69]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     * [70]RDFinXHTML-35

     [69] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     [70] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35

    2.6.4 Miscellaneous issues

     * [71]namespaceDocument-8
          + Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue,
            pointing to the RDDL Note. See [72]comments from Paul
            regarding TB theses. From 21 July ftf meeting, due 31 August.
          + Action PC 2003/09/08: Providing WebArch text as well for this
          + Action TB 2003/09/15: Add "Hello World" example to next draft
            of RDDL Spec (i.e., to edited version of [73]RDDL draft 4).
          + Action TB 2003/09/15: Produce schemaware for RDDL spec once
            TAG has consensus on the syntax.
          + Refer to draft TAG [74]opinion from Tim Bray on the use of
            URNs for namespace names.
     * [75]uriMediaType-9
          + IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
            (see [76]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?]
     * [77]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 [78]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
     * [79]xlinkScope-23
          + See [80]draft, and [81]SW message to CG chairs.
          + Action CL 2003/06/30: Ping the chairs of those groups asking
            for an update on xlinkScope-23.
     * [82]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 [83]summary from Chris.
     * [84]xmlFunctions-34
          + Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
            XML Core work. See [85]email from TimBL capturing some of the
     * [86]charmodReview-17
         1. Action SW 2003/10/08: Follow up with I18N folks on status of
            TAG's charmod comments.
         2. [87]Mail from DC to I18N WG in light of new Charmod draft
     * [88]rdfURIMeaning-39

     [71] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag#namespaceDocument-8
     [72] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
     [73] http://www.tbray.org/tag/rddl4.html
     [74] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0003.html
     [75] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
     [76] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html
     [77] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
     [78] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
     [79] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
     [80] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
     [81] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
     [82] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
     [83] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
     [84] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
     [85] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html
     [86] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#charmodReview-17
     [87] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Sep/0019.html
     [88] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#rdfURIMeaning-39

3. Other actions

     * Action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that
       actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. PLH has put the
       issues list in production; see the [89]DOM issues list.

     [89] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/09-dom-core-issues/issues.html


    Ian Jacobs for Norm Walsh and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2003/10/20 22:27:55 $

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

Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 18:38:16 UTC