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

[Minutes] 8 Sep 2003 TAG teleconf (mtg planning, charmodReview-17, namespaceDocument-8, versioning/extensibility)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 10 Sep 2003 16:52:34 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1063227153.1231.42.camel@seabright>


Minutes of the 8 Sep 2003 TAG teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below. [I did not attend the
meeting so participants please scan for errors.]

  - Ian


                Minutes of 8 September 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/2003/09/08-tag-summary.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/

1. Administrative (15min)

    1. Roll call: TB, PC, SW (Chair), DO, NW (Scribe), CL. Regrets: RF,
       DC, IJ, TBL
    2. Accepted the minutes of the [9]18 Aug teleconf
    3. Accepted this [10]agenda
    4. Next meeting 15 Sep teleconf. Regrets: CL

      [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0076.html
     [10] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/08-tag.html

  1.1 Scheduling

   Completed action SW 2003/08/18: Review work plan from Vancouver F2F to
   help with schedule ([11]done)

     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Aug/0037.html

   See below for information about [12]Arch Doc scheduling.

          SW: Hope for TR page publication of WebArch before Oct f2f
          Prospect for interrum editors draft on 17 Sep per Ian
          PC: Looking at .../0037.html, thought we would swap 8 Sep and
          22 Sep. So use 22 Sep for editor's draft review?
          SW: Yes
          PC: So I need to have NSDocument8 done by next Monday (15 Sep)
          Suggest extensibility today, NS for 15 Sep, editors draft
          review on 22 Sep
          TBray: Commits to 15 Sep
          SW: Sounds good to me
          PC: Extensibility may pop up again
          SW: Review comments by email before 22 Sep if IJ gets draft out
          in a timely fashion. I don't want to start at the beginning of
          the document Want commitment from TAG to submit comments in
          advance of the meeting
          SW: On 29 Sep, we'll catch up on findings
          TAG congratulates Roy on his recent nuptuals
          SW: No idea how we're going to generate text for interaction
          RF: No comments at this time.

  1.2 charmodReview-17

     * [13]charmodReview-17
         1. Completed action IJ 2003/07/14: Move issue 17 to pending
            rather than resolved.
         2. Completed action DC: Remind I18N WG of what we are expecting
            regarding issue 17; send this on behalf of the TAG ([14]Done
         3. [15]Mail from DC to I18N WG in light of new Charmod draft

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#charmodReview-17
     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0052.html
     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Sep/0019.html


          SW: What should we do about I18N. They haven't told us anything
          TBray: They accepted many of our comments, but rejected our big
          one to split document.
          PC: Why did they reject it?
          TBray: They thought it would take too much time. But perhaps
          they put more thought into it than the record would suggest
          SW: I could enter the dialog or leave it in DC's hands
          PC: I'd prefer that SW enter the dialog. Them saying no doesn't
          help us understand why.
          TBray: I agree, and I would add that we could note that the
          extreme delay in getting around to something as simple as
          addressing the commentary illustrates the problem
          PC: +1 References were on tag-only, not publicly. We should say
          "the TAG has noted that..." and that will open the discussion
          SW: I'm inclined to keep it within the thread that started it
          Action SW: Follow up on the status of our CharMod comments

          I'd like the record to reflect that the TAG still feels that
          the Web community is in urgent need of the results of their
          excellent work

          TAG agreement

  1.2 Bristol meeting planning (6 - 8 Oct)

   See [16]meeting page for information about suggested hotels.

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2003/10/06-tag-mtg

   Completed action SW 2003/08/18: Suggest hotel ([17]done)

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Sep/0004.html

          SW: I hope folks feel they have what they need. The purpose and
          motivation of the meeting is to do another cycle on the WebArch
          to get to LC. I assume that's what folks still want us to do
          TBray: Agreed
          NW: I'm staying at the Marriot Royal
          SW: What about a hired car from LHR?: NW, PC, TBray, DO are
          NW: Why doesn't everyone post arrival times and we'll work it
          out in email
          SW: Julie will collate and contact the car company
          PC: What about returns
          SW: IJ wants to leave midday on Wednesday.: It is possible to
          get flights back late afternoon, if they wanted to

2. Technical (75min)

  2.1 NamespaceDocument-8

   Status of work on [18]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.
       From 21 July ftf meeting, due 31 August.
     * Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue,
       pointing to the RDDL Note. See [19]comments from Paul regarding TB
       theses. From 21 July ftf meeting, due 31 August.
     * Refer to draft TAG [20]opinion from Tim Bray on the use of URNs
       for namespace names.

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag#namespaceDocument-8
     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0003.html

          TBray: you've had the bad news
          SW: How much of this work affects the WebArch doc?
          PC: Don't know, but will try to include that in the finding
          TBray: Volume of material in the WebArch document is modest
          PC: Yes, but it would still be useful to provide the WebArch
          Action PC: Provide finding and proposed WebArch text

  2.2 Versioning and extensibility

     * Completed Action NW, DO 2003/08/21: Finding on extensibility, due
       15 August 2003 ([21]done)

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


          SW: Thanks for working on it.
          PC: I've read most of it
          DO: Should we provide an overview
          NW: I'm scribing, DO, please lead
          DO: The purpose is to try to provide some firm guidance to
          specification writers on what kinds of things they should do
          (or the options and tradeoffs). In two areas: schemas and
          software. Finding tries to provide a methodology to design
          specifications and software such that backwards and forwards
          comaptible changes can be made to the specification. So that we
          can have newer versions of specifications rolled out in a
          well-defined manner. Obviously the topic of versioning is
          difficult, but there are a number of things that can be done
          wrt schemas and wildcards that can enable it. Document tries to
          explain why you want to do this, what can you do, what problems
          arise, and then we dive into what we suggest for W3C XML
          Schemas in particular. In particular we discuss some of the
          problems that arise as a result of determinisim in W3C XML
          Schema. Introduce notion about how you should design a schema,
          why its done that way, the notion of extension in the same and
          different namespaces. Talks about kinds of languages:
          extensions, containers, etc. Discusses rules for design in some
          of these language cases. Guidelines: you must specify a
          processing model, describes what some options are. And then a
          lengthy discussion of some alternative techniques. In works
          that this was somewhat derived from, there was a lengthier
          discussion of the schema issues and what schema could have done
          to make this a little easier, but that language has been toned
          down considerably
          TBray: 1. It's a stupendous piece of work. Everything in here
          will find a use. No matter how many times I read it, I think
          the defs. of backwards and forwards compatibility are
          backwards. Did you have any angst about that?
          NW/DO: Yes. Lots.
          DO: Tries to explain.
          NW: There's some angst. Maybe more explanation is needed.
          TBray: I think just a concrete example like the one you just
          gave will help
          DO: This comes right from FOLDOC
          TBray: Let's lift a concrete example, it would help a lot. The
          most valuable lession I learned in years of pub. systems, is
          the extreme lack of consensus in the mental model of
          versioning. Your model is probably violently incompatible with
          the model of the guy sitting next to you. Words of caution is
          all I'm suggesting. I think that the thing would partition
          cleanly into a extensibility forwards/backwards compatibility
          policy note and a technical note about XmL Schema. One of the
          reasons we embedded it is because XML Schema is the basis of
          most of the W3C work. What I was worried about was that if we
          did it very generally and left the schema stuff somewhere else,
          the developer would see abstract stuff when what they really
          want is the technical stuff. Lots of folks aren't using W3C XML
          Schema. For example, the RSS folks would benefit from the
          policy note and don't care about the schema stuff
          DO: Feedback understood. Let's think about that a little bit.
          PC: You aren't telling us what material you want to change in
          the WebArch document. There's a section on extensibility, does
          it remain the same?
          DO: We're not sure yet how much could be inserted into the
          architecture document. I'd like to see an encapsulation in the
          WebArch document. We thought it was important to find out if
          the TAG agrees first.
          PC: The theme appears to be largely focussed around distributed
          applications and web services. I was hoping you'd talk a lot
          more about extensibility for the existing we developer today.
          Maybe that's the point that the TBray was making. For example,
          some folks don't know when to change a namespace URI. I would
          have thought that something along those lines was what we
          wanted in the first architectecture document. At the very end
          of Section 7, there's a paragraph that says "As you can see..."
          That's the heart of the matter.
          DO: So you'd like to see some more emphasis on that rule about
          reusing namespaces in a more general kind of manner
          PC: The places we can't get agreement today are things like
          when do you change the namespace when you're working on a spec?
          At every draft? Does it stop changing at Last Call? I think we
          need to say something "simpler" or "more grounded in existing
          practice" in V1 of the WebArch document. I wonder if Dan was
          saying the same thing in his initial response.
          DO: I've read through most of them quite throughly.
          PC: I guess my emphasis is that I would tend to agree with
          TBray. For example, how should I manage versioning of the
          namespace for the F&O document in XQuery. It's just a namespace
          with a bunch of function names. The general principles up front
          might apply, but you haven't really helped me. I don't think
          you have enough to say on that and way to much on Schema.
          Splitting it into two parts and making sure the first part
          emphasises stuff more related to current practices would allow
          us to generate material for V1 of the arch. document
          SW: I share some of the concerns of PC and TBray. Possibily a
          need to distinguish between vocabulary and language. There are
          words that appear here that might have archtectural import.
          DO: That's why I wanted to have those words defined in the
          WebArch document
          TBray: I notice for example that the Namespaces Rec introduces
          the notion of vocabulary without defining it
          PC: F&O vocabulary is actually a list of functions
          SW: Vocabulary is a list of terms and language draws on that
          vocabulary. One thing that jumped out as a principle: 5.2: The
          collorary that permision is required for extension in the same
          namespace...". That kind of statement felt like it was
          something of architectural merit. Most of the rest seemed like
          it was good practice (particularly in a schema context). What
          weight is intended for the rules? Are they, for example, bound
          for a Recommendation. Editorial obs. Section 4 reads like an
          NW: Yes, it could have been cleaned up. But I insisted on
          publishing. DO wanted to polish
          TBray: I'm on your side norm
          SW: What about making it public
          DO: How about we take another wack at it (organizationally) and
          then make that public
          PC: What about the alternatives at the end
          PC: Are you saying that none of the other alternatives in
          Section 10 fit the bill?
          DO: Yes. You can't use type derivation or subst. groups in a
          bw/fw compatible manner with zero changes at the other side
          PC: That's a pretty bold statement, you know.
          DO: But it's true. If you've got an older version of the
          software, the only way it can know it's a backwards compatible
          version is to look at th enew type. That means the older
          software has the newer type.
          PC: That's all about whether you live in an open or closed
          world. That's one of the four remaining issues that Query is
          battling with. In an open world, you can treat subtypes as a
          recognizable supertype. That's going to leave you open to some
          really strong criticism. In particular, you haven't
          subjectively described why your solution is better than the
          others. You've just pointed out why some of the others don't
          TBray: One hole: it is popular in designing languages to have a
          version attribute on the root element. We're having a big fight
          about that in son-of-RSS land. This is related to what you can
          put in version= on the XML Declaration. I tend to be in favor
          of a version element on the root of most vocabularies unless
          there's a good reason not to. I think we'd have to cover that.
          NW: There's a section in there about how using a version
          attribute lets you down
          PC: No where in this document do you talk about negotiating the
          vocabulary between the sender and receiver. Isn't that a pretty
          common arch. design?
          NW: Version numbers is the last five paras of section 3
          TBray: I'll have to respond to that in detail
          DO: It's good to know there's going to be pushback
          PC: You thought this met an 80/20 cut. Version numbers often
          meet a 90/10 cut. So do namespaces. Where in the flavors
          discussion do you put changing the namespace for each working
          NW: We need to describe the general cases in more detail
          PC: That would motivate the the rest of the discussion, perhaps

          Did you guy's review this message (and surrounding thread)

     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0092.html

          PC: If you step forward from the simple problem, you'll get to
          what this document proposes
          DO: We internalized a fair amount of the motivation, and
          settled on a particular case.
          NW: Point taken.

          NW: Nobody is suggesting that the document is wrong in what it
          says. Strong suggestion that it could be cleanly separated into
          general policy as distinct from special techniqieus for XML
          Schema. Plus insufficient motivation for versioning policies in
          distributed systems: and on vocabs that are just names like
          XQuery F and OOPlus distinction between dev time and deployment
          time, e.g. successive WDs change namespaces, but stop at some
          point in the process
          SW: Which version do we take public?
          NW: I'm OK with this one.
          PC: if you split it, part 1 won't be controversial, part 2 will
          PC: SQL does subtyping by extension, big-bang approach, it
          seems to work

          SW: How about running it by HT?
          DO: I have no objection, but I'd like to do a new version
          first. PC, I heard your point about motivation the first time
          SW: Can you propose a date for rewrites
          DO: 18 Sep.
          NW: 18 Sep, ok.

   Action NW and DO: Produce a new draft by 18 Sep

  2.3 Status of overdue action items

     * Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 3. From 21 July ftf meeting,
       due 18 August
     * [23]contentPresentation-26: Action CL (and IJ from ftf meeting)
       2003/06/02: Make available a draft finding on
       content/presentation. From 21 July ftf meeting, revision due 8

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26

     * [24]whenToUseGet-7: 9 July 2003 draft of [25]URIs, Addressability,
       and the use of HTTP GET and POST
          + DO said he had additional comments at 21 July 2003 ftf
          + See [26]comments from Noah

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030709.html
     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0297.html


          SW: I'd like to get some indication of when something would be
          RF: So would I, but I can't give you one
          SW: CL isn't here
          SW: whenToUseGet-7 is close to finished, but waits action on DO
          Action DO: Complete action by 12 Sep
          NW: I am reminded everytime I scribe of how much effort IJ
          undertakes on a weekly basis and wish to publically thank hhim
          yet again


   Below not discussed.

  2.4 Architecture Document

   Reference draft: [27]1 August 2003 Editor's Draft of the Arch Doc

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801

   What is TAG's expectation of editor at this point? For example:
    1. IJ closes loop on introduction with TB, RF (DC?). There was
       discussion at the [28]18 Aug teleconf about a [29]rewrite of the
       abstract and introduction
    2. Editor's draft 17 Sep
    3. Reviewed at 22 Sep TAG teleconf
    4. IJ incorporates comments, gets review from two TAG participants,
       and requests 1 Oct TR publication
    5. New TR draft published 1 Oct
    6. TAG reviews 1 Oct draft for and at face-to-face meeting 6 Oct.

     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0076.html
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/webarch-intro-20030813.html

    2.4.1 Review of actions related to Architecture Document

   Open action items:
     * Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 3. From 21 July ftf meeting,
       due 18 August.
     * Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of
       "[30]Conversations and State" into section to be produced by RF.
     * Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about
       extensibility related to "when to tunnel".
     * Action CL 2003/07/21: Create an illustration of two resources, one
       designated by URI without fragment, and one designated by same URI
       with fragment...
     * Action TB 2003/08/18: Bring some Vancouver ftf meeting photos to
       IJ attention (of whiteboard, re: CL action about illustration of
       two resources)
     * Action IJ, CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of
       language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.
     * Action TBL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement to "URI persistence
       ...person's mailbox" in 2.6 and continue to revise [31]TBL draft
       of section 2.6 based on TAG's 23 July discussion.
     * Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5 showing
       examples of freenet and other systems.
     * Action TB 2003/08/04: Write a definition of "XML-based"
     * Action IJ 2003/08/04: s/machine-readable/something like: optimized
       for processors, w/ defn that includes notion that it can be
       processed unattended (by a person).
     * Completed action NW 2003/08/04: Redraft 4.10.2 to include some
       good practice notes (e.g., use namespaces!) ([32]done)
     * Completed action NW 2003/08/04: Rewrite para 4 of 4.10.4
     * Action TB and CL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement sentence in
       section regarding advantages of text formats. IRC log of
       [34]18 Aug teleconf suggested done, but can't find evidence.

     [30] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conversations
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/tim
     [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0002.html
     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0008.html
     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0076.html

   The following action items were follow-up from the 22 July
   face-to-face meeting in Vancouver:
     * Identification and resources
         1. TBL 2003/08/21: Write replacement text for Moby Dick example
            in section 2.6 (on URI ambiguity). Is this done in [35]TBL's
     * Representations
         1. TB, IJ 2003/08/21: Integrate findings. What does this mean?

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/tim#URI-persistence


  2.5 Findings

   See also [36]TAG findings home page.

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings/

    2.5.1 Draft findings nearing closure

     * [37]contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of [38]Client
       handling of MIME headers
         1. [39]Comments from Roy on charset param
         2. [40]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. [41]Comments from Chris Lilley
         4. Change "MIME headers" to "server metadata" in title?
     * Action IJ 2003/07/21: Update Deep linking finding (i.e., create a
       new revision) with references to [42]German court decision
       regarding deep linking. No additional review required since just
       an external reference.

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0051.html
     [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0076.html
     [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0113.html
     [42] http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Sort=3&Datum=2003&Art=pm&client=3&Blank=1&nr=26553&id=1058517255.04

    2.5.2 Draft findings that require more discussion

     * [43]xmlIDSemantics-32:
         1. [44]Chris Lilley draft finding.
         2. Action CL 2003/06/30: Revise this draft finding with new
            input from reviewers.
     * [45]contentPresentation-26: Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a
       draft finding on content/presentation. From 21 July ftf meeting,
       revision due 8 August.
     * [46]metadataInURI-31: 8 July 2003 draft of "[47]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 [48]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
            schemes instead of headers
          + See comments from [49]Mark Nottingham and [50]followup from
            Noah M.
     * [51]abstractComponentRefs-37
          + Action DO 2003/06/23: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask
            them for their analysis.

     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31
     [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html
     [49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0048.html
     [50] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0055.html
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37

    2.5.3 Expected new findings

    1. Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn [52]TB apple story into a finding.
    2. Action PC: Finding on namespace documents, due 31 August 2003

     [52] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/30/AppleWA

  2.6 Issues

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

    2.3.1 Identifiers ([53]URIEquivalence-15 , [54]IRIEverywhere-27)

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

     * [55]URIEquivalence-15
          + SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [56]Tim Bray text has
            been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
            issue to pending state.
     * [57]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. [58]TBL draft not yet
            available on www-tag.
          + See TB's [59]proposed step forward on IRI 27.

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

    2.3.2 Qnames, fragments, and media types([60]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6,
    [61]fragmentInXML-28, [62]abstractComponentRefs-37, [63]putMediaType-38)

     [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [62] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

     * [64]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
            desideratum ([65]RQ-23).
     * [66]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.
     * [67]abstractComponentRefs-37(discussed [68]above).
     * [69]putMediaType-38

     [64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [65] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
     [66] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [67] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [68] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag.html#findingsInProgress
     [69] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

    2.3.3 New and other Issues requested for discussion.
    ([70]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33, [71]RDFinXHTML-35, [72]siteData-36 plus
    possible new issues)

     [70] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     [71] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
     [72] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36

   Existing Issues:
     * [73]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     * [74]RDFinXHTML-35
     * [75]siteData-36
          + Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36

     [73] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     [74] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
     [75] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36

    2.3.5 Miscellaneous issues

     * [76]uriMediaType-9
          + IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
            (see [77]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?]
     * [78]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 [79]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
     * [80]xlinkScope-23
          + See [81]draft, and [82]SW message to CG chairs.
          + Action CL 2003/06/30: Ping the chairs of those groups asking
            for an update on xlinkScope-23.
     * [83]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 [84]summary from Chris.
     * [85]xmlFunctions-34
          + Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
            XML Core work. See [86]email from TimBL capturing some of the
     * [87]rdfURIMeaning-39
         1. Completed Action DC 2003/08/18: Alert SWCG of this issues

     [76] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
     [77] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html
     [78] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
     [79] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
     [80] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
     [81] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
     [82] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
     [83] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
     [84] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
     [85] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
     [86] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html
     [87] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#rdfURIMeaning-39
     [88] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0003.html

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 Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2003/09/10 20:45:52 $

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2003 16:52:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:00 UTC