- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: 20 Oct 2003 18:36:12 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1066689371.1029.106.camel@seabright>
Hello,
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
risk.
5. Reminder: Action items related to Arch Document due 22 October.
People reconfirmed that they would be able to complete their
actions.
[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
items
[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.
([19]done)
[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
[Ian]
[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
[Ian]
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
framework...
[ChrisL]
PointerPart ::= SchemeName '(' SchemeData ')'
EscapedData ::= NormalChar | '^(' | '^)' | '^^' | '('
SchemeData ')'
[Roy]
is broken, as stated earlier
[Ian]
TBray: Roy has publicly flamed xpointer in the past.
[ChrisL]
so we are saying, as the TAG, that XPointer Framework and
dependent specs are *broken*? or not?
[Ian]
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.
[ChrisL]
RF: xptr spec uses illegal characters not allowed in fragment
identifiers
cl: however, the syntax used in XML will be escaped when used
on the wire as per usual
[Ian]
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
syntax.
[ChrisL]
which uses parens as per what was believed to be correct
current practice
[Ian]
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
practices?
CL, TB: Yes.
[TB seeks title for issue regarding URI design]
[ChrisL]
[21]http://www.w3.org/XML/Linking has no link to an
implementation report
[21] http://www.w3.org/XML/Linking
[Ian]
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
that...).
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
strongly.
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/
[TBray]
Principles: don't put in the name of the product e.g.
example.com/cgi-bin/sadlfk.cfm?cfmId=3125
[Ian]
DO: Hmm, seems like finding a better place for this level of
detail rather than in arch doc, especially if the material is
controversial.
[TBray]
Principle: consider putting in dates
[Ian]
TBray: I think that we should adopt this as an issue: "What are
good practices for URI construction?"
[Roy]
I will take that as an action item
[Ian]
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
3023.
- 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.
[Ian]
[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
3023.
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
[ChrisL]
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
[Roy]
I would prefer that the "id" issue be settled first.
[ChrisL]
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?
[Ian]
- 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..
[ChrisL]
TB: arch doc says 3023 is wrong, simon says "and?"
[Ian]
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
www-tag).
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.
TimBray
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
Stuart
1. Completed action SW: Send to IJ draft diagrams
Ian
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
resources.
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.
David
1. Action DO,NW 2003/10/08: Make the summary to replace 4.5
Extensibility and Versioning in the arch doc
Chris
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.
Norm
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
distinguishable."
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.
Roy
1. Action RF 2003/10/08: Explain "identifies" in RFC 2396.
RF: In the Arch Doc, just remove '(i.e., name)'.
TBL
1. Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about
extensibility related to "when to tunnel".
DC
1. Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5
showing examples of freenet and other systems. Progress; see
[26]URISchemes/freenet
[26] http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes_2ffreenet
IJ talked about modeling Web Arch in OWL
[Ian]
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.
[DaveO]
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.
[Ian]
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
requirements.
+ 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
IRIs.
+ 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
issue.
+ 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
issues.
* [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