- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: 10 Sep 2003 16:52:34 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello,
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.
[Norm]
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
Accepted
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
section
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
[Norm]
SW: What should we do about I18N. They haven't told us anything
officially.
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
[TBray]
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
[Norm]
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
[Norm]
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
interested
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
[Norm]
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
changes
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
[Norm]
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
introduction.
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
work.
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
draft
NW: We need to describe the general cases in more detail
PC: That would motivate the the rest of the discussion, perhaps
[Stuart]
Did you guy's review this message (and surrounding thread)
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0092.ht
ml
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0092.html
[Norm]
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.
[TBray]
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
[Norm]
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
August.
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
Findings:
* [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
meeting.
+ 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
[Norm]
SW: I'd like to get some indication of when something would be
ready
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
([33]done)
* Action TB and CL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement sentence in
section 3.2.2.1 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
draft?
* 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
IRIs.
+ 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
issues.
* [87]rdfURIMeaning-39
1. Completed Action DC 2003/08/18: Alert SWCG of this issues
([88]done)
[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