- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: 29 Oct 2003 12:58:39 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1067450319.1107.271.camel@seabright>
Hello,
Minutes of the TAG's 27 Oct 2003 teleconference are
available as HTML [1] and as text below.
- Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/10/27-tag-summary.html
========================================================
Minutes of 27 October 2003 TAG teleconference
1. Administrative
1. Roll call: SW (Chair), DO, DC (Scribe), TBL, NW, CL, RF, PC.
Regrets: TB, IJ.
2. Accepted the minutes of the 20 Oct teleconference
3. Accepted this agenda
4. Next meeting: 3 Nov 2003 teleconference. Tentative regrets: PC,
NW, TBL.
Upcoming meeting topics:
* 3 Nov: Review comments on 27 Oct Editor's Draft of Arch Doc
1.1 TAG update at Nov 2003 AC meeting.
1. Completd action DO, CL 2003/10/20: Produce draft slides for AC
presentation; for discussion at 27 Oct teleconference. (done)
[DanCon]
DO reviews AC slide proposal
DO: it was very rewarding comparing the current webarch doc to
the one 6 months ago; much more fleshed out.
PC: presentation duration? main message?
DO: I gather our slot is 60min; present for 40 to 55, allow 5 to
20min QA?
PC: I don't see much about [... trouble capturing it...]
[Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to ask why so much time on readily-available
factual material
[DanCon]
PC: perhaps figure out some questions and work backward?
DanC: a big question is: the TAG costs a lot; do you want to
keep spending the resource that way?
TimBL: what would you say to somebody in the corridoor?
DanC: I found writing up the interaction with the Voice WG
rewarding...
DO: I hearw3452W5r'
[scribe needs help or something]
DanC: I don't see any need to tell the AC what's in the
document, I guess.
SW: what's the coolest thing? I liked the interaction with
voice... hmm...
PC: we've delegated a bunch.
... binary XML Workshop.
[timbl]
No affect on i18n
[DanCon]
... bumping into I18N...
[timbl]
... 18n WG wouldn't take any notice
[DanCon]
... XML Core ID stuff.
... plus VoiceXML
TimBL: we stirred up RFC3023...
Chris: IANA... media type...
[several]: ... IETF in general
DO: I think it's important to talk about the new text...
... about how we've decided to get to Last Call ASAP, and what
we've done about it
DanC: hmm... the bulk of new text suggests to me that we're not
headed for Last Call right away
ACTION ChrisL: incorporate input on AC slides and produce
another draft. ETA: Weds
1.2 TAG Nov face-to-face meeting agenda
* Expect to attend: SW, PC, NW, DC, CL, TBL, IJ
* Do not expect to attend: RF
* Don't know: TB
1.3 New issues list deployed
Completed action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that
actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. (done)
2. Technical (75min)
1. Review of 3023-related actions
2. Review of Architecture Document writing assignments
3. XML Versioning
2.1 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.
Action CL 2003/10/20: Draft update to 3023 for review by the TAG
(on www-tag).
[DanCon]
CL: I took the ball on a new draft, which prompted new input
from Murata-san
PC: summary?
CL: deprecate text/xml due to charset foo; revises advice on
when to use charset; ...
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#RFC3023Charset-21
[ChrisL]
RFC3023Charset-21: Do all "shoulds" of RFC 3023 section 7.1
apply?
[DanCon]
ACTION CL: draft XML mime type thingy with Murata-san. [Previous action
thus subsumed.]
2.2 Review of Architecture Document writing assignments
Latest draft is the 1 Oct 2003 WD of the Arch Doc.
TimBray
1. Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Write up a paragraph for
section 3 on syntax-based interoperability. (done). See
also comments from Mike Champion
2. Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Write a paragraph of
rationale for why error handling good in the context of
the Web. (done)
3. Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Propose a revised
paragraph to replace the "Furthermore" sentence in
section 2.3 (done)
Ian
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 4.4.
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 resources.
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.
David
1. Completed action DO,NW 2003/10/08: Make the summary to
replace 4.5 Extensibility and Versioning in the arch doc
(done)
Chris
1. Action CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved
wording of language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list
in 2.5.1.
Norm
1. Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Write up text on
information hiding/abstraction respect for before 2/3/4.
(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
distinguishable."
3. Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Rewrite the last
paragraph of 4.9.2 to be less inflammatory about DTDs
(done)
4. Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Massage three paragraphs
following good practice note about persistency at
beginning of 2.6. (done)
Roy
1. Action RF 2003/10/08: Explain "identifies" in RFC 2396.
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 URISchemes/freenet
2.3 XML Versioning
Current draft is 3 Oct 2003 finding
[DanCon]
DO: Norm and I did some work on this last week and this; I sent
a new draft just now...
scribes thinks the relevant msg is "Proposed text for web arch
section 4.5, extensibility and versioning"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0137.html
DO: intro/motivation text is new...
... diagram updated...
DO: I note the discussion of how to handle terminology sections;
leaving that aside for a bit...
[I'm confused; I see "1.x" but DO is saying "4.x"]
[timbl]
This note is proposed to be inserted in the arch doc? (TBL
confirms by reading from abstract)
[Stuart]
s/x.y/4.x+5.y (ish)
[DanCon]
DO: this text is shorter than the finding; xml-schema-specific
stuff is left out
CL: what to do with the schema-specific stuff?
NW: it's still in the finding, which we haven't updated...
DanC: I'd like to discuss the thesis; is this it? "The primary
motivation to allow instances of a language to be extended is to
decentralize the task of designing, maintaining, and
implementing extensions."
NW: that, plus you can't add extensibility later. gotta do it up
front
[scribe was discussing, missed a whole pile]
SW: I see lots of good practice boxes; did you try to minimize
those?
NW: no; I promoted all the boxes from the finding; perhaps we'll
lose a few
PC: this "nobody but the owner can change a namespace"... hm...
Query added stuff to XML Schema namespace...
DO: hmm!
TBL: with knowledge/consent?
NW: recall the Query WG decided users can't add functions to the
fn namespace
PC is excused at this point.
[Stuart]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0029.html
[Roy]
DC and DO: debate pro and con regarding defining terms on first
use or separate terminology section
[DanCon]
[... on style of tems...]
DO: we've spent a bunch of writing time on this; not sure how
much more I'm interested to do.
DC: I said when this versioning stuff came up "sounds like an
interesting book"; I think we're maybe 1/3rd done writing this.
I still have serious problems with the 1st sentence.
SW earlier asked about whether to review it separately as part
of the arch doc...
[several]: put it in
DC: I shopped this versioning stuff around; it's quite popular.
Folks seem to want it.
TimBL: I think people want this set of terms nailed down; usage
of "instance" in some places looks a bit informal in a way that
might be misleading. Also, how much of this is XML specific?
[draws analogy between HTTP URIs and URIs ala XML formats and
formats]
NW: I think tim is asking for more precision in this section
than we've held ourselves to in other sections
timbl: there are a bunch of new terms here; they merit the same
review as other stuff
DO: how about: pls give us comments weds, NW and I do another
draft by [missed it], then we hand to Ian
[Norm]
DC: extensibility and versioning are not cost free
[DanCon]
"The primary motivation to allow instances of a language to be
extended is to decentralize the task of designing, maintaining,
and implementing extensions."
[Stuart]
Hmm... here's a candidate for the thesis: "The primary
motivation to allow instances of a language to be extended is to
decentralize the task of designing, maintaining, and
implementing extensions. It allows senders to change the
instances without going through a centralized authority."
from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0029.html
________________________________________________________________________
The TAG does not expect to cover these issues
2.5 Findings
See also TAG findings home page.
* whenToUseGet-7: Finding: URIs, Addressability, and the use of
HTTP GET and POST
* contentPresentation-26: Draft finding: Separation of semantic
and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
architecturally sound
* contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of Client handling of
MIME headers
1. Completed action RF 2003/09/15: Proposed substitute text
in light of previous comments on charset param. (Done)
2. 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. Comments from Chris Lilley
4. Lots of comments from Martin Duerst
* metadataInURI-31
* deepLinking-25
2.2.1 Expected new findings
* siteData-36
* abstractComponentRefs-37
________________________________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2003/10/29 17:52:58 $
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 12:58:46 UTC