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

[Minutes] 15 Sep 2003 TAG teleconf (namespaceDocument-8, deepLinking-25, whenToUseGet-7, contentTypeOverride-29)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 15 Sep 2003 18:49:13 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1063666152.22957.352.camel@seabright>


Minutes of the 15 Sep 2003 TAG teleconf are available as
HTML [1] and as text below.

I had some difficulty scribing discussion of contentTypeOverride-29, so
if you see any errors, please
let me know.

Thank you,

 _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/15-tag-summary.html

                Minutes of 15 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/2003/09/15-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/

1. Administrative

    1. Roll call: SW (Chair), TBL, NW, DO, TB, DC, RF, IJ (Scribe) .
       Regrets: CL. Missing: PC
    2. Accepted the minutes of the [9]8 Sep teleconf
    3. Accepted this [10]agenda
    4. Next meeting 22 Sep teleconf. Regrets: SW (NW to Chair) and DO
    5. A distributed meeting is planned for 10 Nov (in response to
       [11]email from PC)

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/08-tag-summary.html
     [10] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/15-tag.html
     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Sep/0032.html

   Upcoming events:
     * 17 Sep: Next Editor's draft of arch doc
     * 18 Sep: Next draft from NW/DO of extensibility draft finding
     * 22 Sep telcon: Review of Editors' draft of arch doc
     * 29 Sep telcon: Focus on Findings
     * 1 Oct: TR page draft of arch doc
       [No objections to IJ requesting publication after two TAG
       participants give ok on revised draft.]
     * 6-8 Oct ftf: arch doc review primarily, publishing expectations

2. Technical

    1. [12]rdfURIMeaning-39
    2. [13]namespaceDocument-8
    3. [14]deepLinking-25
    4. [15]whenToUseGet-7
    5. [16]contentTypeOverride-29

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/15-tag-summary.html

  2.1 rdfURIMeaning-39

     * [17]rdfURIMeaning-39

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#rdfURIMeaning-39

          SW: Anything going on in rdfURIMeaning-39? I urge TAG to sign
          up to relevant mailing list.
          DC: 8-9 people have introduced themselves on the mailing list.
          There are a few considered mail messages per week, which is a
          good thing. No call scheduled yet, but progress.

  2.2 namespaceDocument-8

   Status of work on [18]namespaceDocument-8.
     * Completed 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. ([19]done; see [20]RDDL
     * Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue,
       pointing to the RDDL Note. See [21]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
     * Refer to draft TAG [22]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://www.tbray.org/tag/rddl4.html
     [20] http://www.tbray.org/tag/rddl4.html
     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0046.html
     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0003.html


          TBray: In [23]RDDL 4, produced a status section. Haven't added
          canonical mapping to RDF yet.
          DC: This action not done to my satisfaction until sent to

     [23] http://www.tbray.org/tag/rddl4.html

          timbl, i thought you commented on RDDL, but I can't find that
          comment. Am I mistaken? If not, where did you send it?

          SW: What about statement about TAG consensus regarding
          suitability of RDDL as a format for ns docs?
          TBL: I think the TAG consensus part belongs in finding rather
          than in RDDL spec (i.e., the statement in the status section of
          the RDDL draft).
          TBray: I promise to do canonical mapping this week.
          TBL: Please put as a normative appendix in the RDDL spec.
          TBray: If you want to use it, it needs to exist (at least)

          DanC, you wanted to ask for help finding "hello world" example

          TBray: Yes, DC asked for hello world example, and I agreed with
          Action TB: Add hello world example to a new draft this week.
          NW to TB: Did you not also have to produce a DTD?
          TBray: [Big sigh] I'll do this after we're agreed to the
          Action TB: Produce schemaware once TAG has consensus on the
          SW: What about impact of RDDL on arch doc?
          TBray: PC is going to outline the finding. That will include a
          sound bite for inclusion in arch doc.
          Action SW: Ping PC on status of his action.

  2.3 Finding on deep linking (deepLinking-25)

     * Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Update Deep linking finding (i.e.,
       create a new revision) with references to [24]German court
       decision regarding deep linking. No additional review required
       since just an external reference. ([25]Done)

     [24] 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
     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0020.html

          TBray: How about "Public policy actions" instead of "Policies"?
          IJ: A summary blurb in English might also be useful.
          Action TB: Ask Lauren Wood to review German text to see if
          Action IJ: Take back to Comm Team publicity of this document.

   [DanC] I seem to remember that discussion of publicity around this

   Scribe summary: Acceptance of this revision is pending confirmation
   about the included reference.

  2.4 Finding on when to use GET/POST (whenToUseGet-7)

     * [26]whenToUseGet-7: 9 July 2003 draft of [27]URIs, Addressability,
       and the use of HTTP GET and POST
          + Completed action DO 2003/09/08: DO to send additional
            comments, due 12 Sep. ([28]Done)
          + See [29]comments from Noah

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#whenToUseGet-7
     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030709.html
     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0039.html
     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0297.html


          DO comments:
          TBray: WSDL WG aware of the finding, right?
          DO: Yes. But they distinguish "GET" from safety. Support for
          GET seems too low-level. Customers are asking for a way to be
          able to mark an operation as safe.
          DC: Yes, mark as "safe" and use the appropriate binding at the
          protocol level (i.e., depends on the protocol). Mark something
          at abstract level (e.g., "get stock quote") as safe; in
          protocol layer, it's bound to whatever the appropriate safe
          operations are.
          TBray: In DO's note, are we still asking the WSDL WG to do
          DC: You can't currently say in WSDL that an operation is safe.
          SW: I agree with DC that marking safe should take place at
          abstract layer.
          TBray: We are also asking for buy-in from WS community that
          safe operations should be done with GET.
          DO: WSDL WG has accepted as a MUST that they have to accept the
          SOAP 1.2 binding. But I didn't see the marking of operations as
          safe being required.
          TBray: I'm fine with our finding. I think we should ask the WS
          community to (1) investigate the possibility of building in a
          formalism to express the fact that an operation is safe and (2)
          encouraging, in specs, that developers implementing safe
          operations implement them with GET.
          DO: I'm comfortable with (1).
          TBray: I think we need to encourage people to use GET when they
          are using big globs of SOAP inefficiently. We have agreed with
          strong consensus that safe operations should be done with GET.
          If there are WGs that disagree, we need to explore this.
          DO: I am happy with first para of 6 w.r.t. to comments from
          Noah. In SOAP 1.1, I think it was wrong to only describe a POST
          binding and to ignore GET. SOAP 1.2 gives equal treatment to
          GET/POST. I think that there are still a number of cases where,
          even if you have a safe operation, you still want to do with

     [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0039.html

          equal treatment? not for safe ops.

          DO: I think it's moving too far to say "You should only do it
          this particular way...."
          TBray: I agree with you for case of long URIs, etc.
          SW: I think that we are haggling over this statement: "However,
          to represent safety in a more straightforward manner, it should
          be a property of operations themselves, not just a feature of
          bindings." Should we give more rationale for our request.
          DO: I think our last sentence is fine. But I hear TB saying he
          wants something stronger.


     [31] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/09/08/msweb-rest

          DanC, you wanted to respond re "only" GET

          DC: Our finding doesn't say "always use get"; it goes to great
          length. But the bottom line is it says "use get for safe
          operations". The SOAP spec doesn't give equal treatment for
          safe operations; it says use GET. Our position is pretty clear
          on this, it is "For safe operations, use GET.....except...."

          (SOAP 1.2 to wit

     [32] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#useofuris

          Noah's comments since (including replacement text):
          TBray: I'm inclined to accept these comments.
          DC: I would like for more time to think about it.
          TBray: Add some of NM's language (e.g., when I need to
          authenticate all the way into some application)
          Action IJ: Incorporate NM comments and publish revision. If
          nobody shouts "Stop!" then we consider the finding accepted by
          the TAG.
          TBray: Back to other point - our position on use of GET is
          pretty strong, so if there are WGs that are moving in the
          opposite direction, we should interact with them.
          DO: I monitor WSDL WG. I'd like to point out next draft of
          finding to WSDL WG and say "I don't see this in your reqs. If
          WG does not intend to satisfy this requirement, please let's
          SW: I think that the WSDL's statement of their requirement is a
          misstatement of what we are saying.
          DO: First para of section 6 relates to SOAP 1.2. As a result of
          changes to SOAP 1.2, WSDL says "support SOAP 1.2". There's a
          piece missing in WSDL, which I want to ask them about
          (concerning second para of section 6 in finding). I think that
          their issue is more related to SOAP 1.2, not an additional req.
          TBray: It would be great if someone gave us pointers into
          relevant specs where this issue is relevant.
          Action DC: Provide TAG with pointers into WS specs where issue
          of safe operations is manifest.
          [Discussion of TAG / WS liaison]
          DC: Have we told WSDL WG that we want their spec to look like
          DO: There has been lots of dialog. This is a tough one since
          people have a certain mindset. I don't think that there's
          complete understanding of the issues on both sides yet.

     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0297.html

          [34]Issue R128 : InterfaceBindings SHOULD provide for mapping
          Message content to WSDLService location URIs. (From DO. Last
          discussed 22 Jan 2003.)

     [34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/requirements/ws-desc-reqs.html

          Action DO: Ask WSDL WG to look at finding; ask them if marking
          operations as safe in WSDL is one of their requirements.

          cool. Move issue 7 to pending state.

  2.5 Finding on content type (contentTypeOverride-29)

     * [35]contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of [36]Client
       handling of MIME headers
         1. [37]Comments from Roy on charset param and [38]reply from TB
         2. [39]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. [40]Comments from Chris Lilley
         4. Change "MIME headers" to "server metadata" in title?

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0051.html
     [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0056.html
     [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0076.html
     [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0113.html


          IJ to RF: Could you suggest replacement text for your points?

          I can suppy text

          TBray: I'm arguing that in the case of XML, it's actively
          harmful to provide a charset unless you are really certain
          you're right.
          RF: My problem has to so with some XML variations, such as
          XHTML. E.g., if a system is set up to do a security check on
          content, they will tag it with appropriate charset for that
          document, whether they are certain whether the content in the
          document is really of that charset. Their instructions to the
          client is to ONLY use a particular charset.
          TBray: In what scenario is it desirable to tell the client to
          only use one charset.
          RF: There are security holes in some browsers that make them
          vulnerable when trying to do char code switching.: Server tells
          browser "Only interpret this data in the following way." Not
          all xml parsers are correct xml parsers.

          client vulnerability, but our advice to servers might make it

          TB summarizing:
          - I send xhtml text to browser
          - I send as text/html, so no problem sending charset.
          - If I send as application/xhtml+xml ....
          RF: No charset param.
          TBray: Or does it per [41]RFC 3023? If there's no charset param
          on application/xhtml+xml, then I'm fine.

     [41] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt


          [Diff is between sending charset for text/html and application
          TBray: I think we agree that sending xml as text/* is a likely
          source of difficulties. I think we are saying that if we send
          as application/* that it's a bad idea to send charset.

          DanC, you wanted to ask if we've told the WSDL WG what we want
          from them and to and to check if he understood Roy

          RF: I am for removing charset parameter for application/*
          TBray: We could ask authors of 3023 to update it per the
          changes we are asking for. Section 3.2 of 3023: optional
          charset param. "Strongly recommended"
          RF: Ask on www-tag if we should remove charset from
          application/* types. Meanwhile, don't require the server to
          make a judgment call on the content type. Server doesn't have a
          TBray: I note that in draft finding we already grumble about
          what 3023 says
          RF: We can ask authors of 3023 on www-tag why those types have
          charset param.
          Action TB: Draft a Note to authors of RFC 3023 cc'ing www-tag
          about concerns regarding charset asking about chances of
          getting this fixed.
          IJ: How does this affect this sentence: "For this reason,
          servers should only supply a character encoding
          header when there is complete certainty as to the encoding in
          RF: If you keep the sentence, it should say that server
          software should only supply charset when there's complete
          certainty about the character encoding used within the body.
          Action RF: Propose alternative text to other points in RF's
          original email.
          RF: I'll do this today.


  2.3 Architecture Document

   Reference draft: [42]1 August 2003 Editor's Draft of the Arch Doc. See
   also [43]rewrite of the abstract and introduction.

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801
     [43] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/webarch-intro-20030813.html

    2.3.1 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
       "[44]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.
     * Completed action TBL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement to "URI
       persistence ...person's mailbox" in 2.6 and continue to revise
       [45]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).
     * Action TB and CL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement sentence in
       section regarding advantages of text formats. IRC log of
       [47]18 Aug teleconf suggested done, but can't find evidence.

     [44] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conversations
     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/tim
     [46] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0075.html
     [47] 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 [48]TBL's
     * Representations
         1. TB, IJ 2003/08/21: Integrate findings. What does this mean?

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

  2.4 Findings

   See also [49]TAG findings home page.

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

    2.4.2 Draft findings that require more discussion

     * [50]xmlIDSemantics-32:
         1. [51]Chris Lilley draft finding.
         2. Action CL 2003/06/30: Revise this draft finding with new
            input from reviewers.
     * [52]contentPresentation-26: Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a
       draft finding on content/presentation. From 21 July ftf meeting,
       revision due 8 August.
     * [53]metadataInURI-31: 8 July 2003 draft of "[54]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 [55]TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI
            schemes instead of headers
          + See comments from [56]Mark Nottingham and [57]followup from
            Noah M.
     * [58]abstractComponentRefs-37
          + Action DO 2003/06/23: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask
            them for their analysis.
     * NW, DO 2003/09/08: Produce new draft of Extensibility/Versioning
       finding, due 18 Sep.

     [50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlIDSemantics-32
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
     [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31
     [55] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0151.html
     [56] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0048.html
     [57] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0055.html
     [58] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37

    2.4.3 Expected new findings

    1. [59]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
    2. Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn [60]TB apple story into a finding.

     [59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [60] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/30/AppleWA

  2.5 Issues

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

    2.5.1 Identifiers ([61]URIEquivalence-15 , [62]IRIEverywhere-27)

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

     * [63]URIEquivalence-15
          + SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where [64]Tim Bray text has
            been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this
            issue to pending state.
     * [65]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. [66]TBL draft not yet
            available on www-tag.
          + See TB's [67]proposed step forward on IRI 27.

     [63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#URIEquivalence-15
     [64] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4
     [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#IRIEverywhere-27
     [66] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Apr/0074.html
     [67] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0090.html

    2.5.2 Qnames, fragments, and media types([68]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6,
    [69]fragmentInXML-28, [70]abstractComponentRefs-37, [71]putMediaType-38)

     [68] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [69] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [70] http://www.w3.org/2003/07/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [71] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

     * [72]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
          + Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
            desideratum ([73]RQ-23).
     * [74]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.
     * [75]abstractComponentRefs-37(discussed [76]above).
     * [77]putMediaType-38

     [72] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [73] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N400183
     [74] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#fragmentInXML-28
     [75] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [76] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/07/21-tag.html#findingsInProgress
     [77] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#putMediaType-38

    2.5.3 New and other Issues requested for discussion.
    ([78]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33, [79]RDFinXHTML-35, [80]siteData-36 plus
    possible new issues)

     [78] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     [79] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
     [80] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36

   Existing Issues:
     * [81]mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     * [82]RDFinXHTML-35
     * [83]siteData-36
          + Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36

     [81] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
     [82] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
     [83] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#siteData-36

    2.5.4 Miscellaneous issues

     * [84]uriMediaType-9
          + IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft
            (see [85]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?]
     * [86]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 [87]message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
     * [88]xlinkScope-23
          + See [89]draft, and [90]SW message to CG chairs.
          + Action CL 2003/06/30: Ping the chairs of those groups asking
            for an update on xlinkScope-23.
     * [91]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 [92]summary from Chris.
     * [93]xmlFunctions-34
          + Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to
            XML Core work. See [94]email from TimBL capturing some of the
     * [95]charmodReview-17
         1. Action SW 2003/09/08: Follow up with I18N folks on status of
            TAG's charmod comments.
         2. [96]Mail from DC to I18N WG in light of new Charmod draft

     [84] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#uriMediaType-9
     [85] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0302.html
     [86] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#HTTPSubstrate-16
     [87] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
     [88] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#xlinkScope-23
     [89] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0094.html
     [90] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104
     [91] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#binaryXML-30
     [92] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
     [93] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlFunctions-34
     [94] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0309.html
     [95] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#charmodReview-17
     [96] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Sep/0019.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 [97]DOM issues list.

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


    Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2003/09/15 22:42:18 $

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 18:49:24 UTC

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