W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2004

[Minutes] 26 Jan 2004 TAG teleconf (I18N Liaison, qnameAsId-18)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:14:50 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1075162489.3406.93.camel@seabright>

Minutes of the TAg's 26 Jan 2004 teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.

 _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/26-tag-summary.html


                 Minutes of 26 January 2004 TAG teleconference

   Nearby: [4]IRC log 
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/26-tagmem-irc.html

1. Administrative (15min)

    1. Roll call: SW, DC, TBL, CL, NW, TB, PC, RF, DO, IJ. For I18N Part
       of meeting: Addison Phillips, Richard Ishida, Martin Dürst.
    2. Resolved to accept minutes of the [9]19 Jan teleconf
    3. Proposed to accept [10]TAG activity summary. SW to review within
       24 hours.
    4. Accepted this [11]agenda
    5. Next meeting: 2 Feb 2004.
    6. Video meeting 9 Feb. Send agenda items to list.
          + DC: namespaceDocument-8 and rdf/xhtml-35
    7. Resolved to cancel 16 Feb teleconf.

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/19-tag-summary.html
     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jan/0059.html
     [11] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/26-tag.html

  1.1 Technical Plenary

    1. Liaisons: In principle agreements and scheduling.
         1. XML Schema WG would like to meet in principle on Monday.
         2. SVG WG: No perceived need to meet ftf.
         3. HTML WG: IJ still has not heard back from Chair.
         4. Voice WG would like to meet in principle. Possible discussion
            of shared memory v. message passing. Also possible issue
            about silent recovery from error.
         5. XML Core: No perceived need to meet ftf.
         6. WSDL: abstract components, marking operations safe in wsdl.
         7. I18N: Continue what we do not conclude today.
    2. Continued action SW 2003/11/15: Take to tech plenary committee the
       TAG's proposal. See [12]hot topics from SW. [13]Proposal from SW
    3. [14]TAG 2 Mar 2004 ftf meeting page
    4. Resolved: Accept AB invitation for joint dinner 4 March

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jan/0057.html
     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jan/0072.html
     [14] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/02-tag-mtg.html

  1.2 TAG meeting schedule in 2004

    1. Action PC 2004/01/05: Propose meeting schedule for next 4 (or so)
       TAG ftf meetings. Due: 23 Jan 2004.
       PC: Not yet done. Please continue.

2. Technical (75min)

   See also [15]open actions by owner and [16]open issues.

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html
     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1

  2.1 qnameAsId-18

     * [17]qnameAsId-18
          + 14 Jan 2004 draft finding "[18]Using Qualified Names (QNames)
            as Identifiers in Content"

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#qnameAsId-18
     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids-2004-01-14


          DO: I am satisfied with the TAG accepting this finding.
          SW: I have read it and I am satisfied.
          PC: +1
          TBray: +1
          DC: Can you read the part where we say qnames in query are ok?
          NW: 4.1 QNames in Other Specifications "The [Functions and
          Operators] specification, for example, uses QNames to identify
          functions. This is motivated partly by backwards compatibility
          with XPath 1.0, but also by the fact that function names share
          some characteristics with element and attribute names. In
          particular, the names need to be globally unique so that name
          collisions don?t occur either between independently developed
          functions or different versions of the specification."
          DC: Drop "equally well"
          TBray: I even object to "equally well"
          SW: I don't mind taking out "equally well"
          DC: Seems best to me to point to the Arch Doc that says "You
          need a mapping"
          SW: Recall there are two issues -

         1. Mapping from qname to URI
         2. Mapping from qualified name to URI

          DC: Query specs don't do what Web Arch says, the finding shoudl
          say that they clash with Arch Doc

          that was the 'must that i was referring to ... must provide a
          mapping to URI

          NW: "Specifications that use QNames to represent {URI,
          local-name} pairs MUST describe the algorithm that is used to
          map between them." You could argue that the Nov 2003 Query
          drafts are deficient in not providing that mapping. But that's
          a comment on the query spec.
          DC: In the discussion on the query specs, seems like they are
          using qnames without mappings to URIs. I'd like the finding to
          point to the Arch Doc and say "This doesn't follow the GPN in
          the Arch Doc."

          timbl, you wanted to suggest that "we expect future drafts to
          be in line with this finding"

          TBL: If we are assuming that specs will change, we should say
          that in a footnote in the finding.

          timbl2, you wanted to say that the distinction is not well made
          between mappings

          TBL: Distinguish between specs as they are today from how we'd
          like them to be. The finding doesn't bring out the different
          mappings. The finding is organized by context. But doesn't say
          which mappings need to be defined.

          "There is no single, accepted way to convert QNames into {URI,
          local-name} pairs or vice versa"

          TBL: I think we might want to promote one way - use xml base
          and namespace...

          I suggest we push this back another week, I for one now want to
          give it a careful read

          TBL: Perhaps finding should deal with two mappings more
          SW: "A related TAG issue, rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6, concerns the
          mechanism by which one can (or can not) construct a URI for a
          particular QName. We do not consider that issue in this
          DC: Then this finding shouldn't talk about the query specs.

          the examples in there are quite good.

          TBray: I suggest we push back one more week. I"d like to read
          it carefully.
          Action CL, TB, TBL: Read finding due next week.
          TBray: I think it's worthwhile since I think this will keep
          coming back. I withdraw my earlier +1 given discussion here;
          subtlety of issue.

          TBL: Document should state that this document is only about XML
          (qnames might be used in other languages).

          timbl: s/in Content/in XML Content/

          it also uses xpointer as an example of a language where qnames
          get used

          thanks, norm, for playing faithful editor. (2nded by Bray)

          NW: I have no plans to make changes before next week.
          The TAG thanks NW for his ongoing work on this finding!
          The TAG has not yet accepted the finding.

  2.2 contentTypeOverride-24

     * 10 Dec 2003 draft finding "[19]Client handling of MIME headers"
     * Status: IJ expects to have revision by 29 January.

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html

   TB, RF expect to review the upcoming draft.

  2.3 namespaceDocument-8 activity

    1. [21]RDDL2 Background from Tim Bray.
    2. [22]grokRDDL.xsl mapping to RDF from Dan Connolly.

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8
     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0045.html
     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0026.html


          DC: TB, did you see my email?
          TBray: I thought your RDF mapping was fine.
          DC: Please sort out amongst yourselves. I prefer attributes.
          TBray: As Eric points out, you can put more structure in a DIV
          than an A. But I'm not convinced by that point.
          CL, TBL, SW: We've watched this thread..
          DC: Please prepare for discussion in substance at our video
          mtg. Please be prepared to give your position (or not) on 9

  2.4 Discussion with Internationalization WG representatives

     * [23]charmodReview-17
          + TAG finding related to adoption of Charmod? See [24]mail from
          + Schedule ftf time during tech plenary week.
          + [25]Charmod LC issues and [26]TAG comments. See also [27]CL
     * [28]URIEquivalence-15
     * [29]IRIEverywhere-27

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#charmodReview-17
     [24] http://www.w3.org/mid/361483C6-96E6-11D7-9C47-000393914268@w3.org
     [25] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/charmod-lastcall2/
     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002Jun/0000.html
     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0164.html
     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#URIEquivalence-15
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#IRIEverwhere-27


          I don't see a resolution to 120 from the minutes

          Where are we on C120?
          Dan: the agreement (see #119) to split puts all the issues on
          the shelf for me
          TBray: Disagree, SW too

          this relates to web architecture how, chris?

          Revisiting C117
          CL: He asked for a link to text, but they did inline text which
          is wonderful. But for remaining images, wants links to text

          stuart, how is C117 related to TAG proceedings?

          CL: shouldn't cause problems because browsers not required to
          MD: where does the link go?
          CL: right underneath the image


     [30] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/SortByGroup#C117


     [31] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/SortByGroup#C117

          MD: sounds reasonable


     [32] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/#sec-Strings
     [33] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/#sec-CharExamples

          Because we as a group blessed Chris' comments collectively
          Discussion of how best to achieve desired effect
          Agree that CL and the I18n guys will work this out
          RESOLVED: C117, pending review by CL
          Next: C120
          TBray: Have you reviewed this since rewritten?
          CL: Expecting input from PC


     [34] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/

          PC: I still have a to-do to follow up
          TBray: Propose to resolve C120, have a look on restructured
          MD: XQuery has a similar problem with underspecification
          PC: We followed all of your links and couldn't find the
          Addison: We think we're fine for the moment

          straight to last call? I'd expect a non-last-call WD

          <discussion> of plans for future charmod drafts
          DC: worried about I18n going straight to last call without
          intervening draft
          MD, Addison: next part 1 has few changes from current text
          after addressing issues

          One can call something "Last Call" if the WG doesn't want to be
          able to change it, whether or not there are "substantive

          timbl, you wanted to say One can call something "Last Call" if
          the WG doesn't want to be abl eto change it, whether or not
          there are "substantive changes"?

          <general discussion of meta-issues; what level should we be
          critiquing at>
          MD: we think these edits are orthogonal to the charmod split

          TBray: Two options

         1. Express ourselves satisfied and close C120
         2. Or say we haven't done enough and will need to review it

          TBray: I'm inclined to go with CL; declare satisfaction with
          issue C120.
          DC: I am opposed to that proposal.

          TBray: Suggest we retire C120
          DC: Objection on the grounds that I need to see the revised

          DC: because we haven't seen the revised text


     [35] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/#sec-CollationUnits

          DC: doesn't believe this is orthogonal to the split
          MD: why not?

          DC: Cuz it's not.

          SW: call question on C120
          Objections: Dan, Roy

          Richard: We're here talking today because we think we've
          addressed your comments. The split won't have a grand effect.

          RI: the split is really not going change the text, it's just a
          partitioning of sections

          Propose therefore that we leave 120 open so we can get to the
          other issues this telcon, please

          "when we split the document, we're not going to be making any
          changes, really" <- I can't make sense of this.

          TB to DC: Will you express objection to any and all issue
          before seeing the new text?
          DC: No. This one is related to the split, some others may not

          Roy: we expressed happiness with large portions some time ago
          TBL: w.r.t. 120, we thank i18n group for taking on our
          feedback, loooks good, we want to review again post-spliit.
          so RESOLVED

          C122 - I am now satisfied with the changes as it no longer
          excludes specs talking about bytes or glyphs where it is
          sensible to do so.

          CL Propose we accept C122
          DC: Abstain
          so RESOLVED

          C123 Is XML non-conforming?

          CL: Propose to accept C123
          DC: so XML no longer non-conforming?

          We do not think that the exclusion of U+0000 in XML 1.1, or of
          the C0 range in XML 1.0, is arbitrary; it was done for very
          clear reasons.

          TB: yes, I mean no, I mean yes, XML is no longer non-conforming
          RESOLVED to accept C123
          C125 next

          3.6.3 contradictory C125 [issue name not very helpful]

          It could also be misused to completely change the rendering of
          some text (in the case of Chinese or Japanese easily to an
          extent that would completely change the meaning of the visually
          appearing text).

          MD: explanation text in i18n response (I didn't understand)

          TBray, you wanted to express bafflement

          TBray: don't understand connection to the PUA

          Proposed: For C125, we accept first paragraph but consider 2nd
          paragraph irrelevant

          so RESOLVED

          Related point, avoid using character mechanisms for things that
          are not characters ('pi' fonts). Use small inline graphics

          MD: we can make a note and address this point
          TB: Propose we accept C126
          so RESOLVED

          C126 Should XML allow NCRs everywhere?

          CL: I don't think you understood; I want to encourage IRIs in
          docs, since wire constraints don't affect them

          TBray: Not very happy about this resolution.

          ACTION DanC: look at C127 "Say that the IRI form is used in the
          document instance and the hexified URI form when it goes over
          the wire"

          TBray: Are the diffs written up in charmod?
          MD: I think there's a whole chapter on referencing

          C128 Referencing the Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC 10646

     [36] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/SortByGroup#C128

          MD: I think it speaks quite a bit to the similarities/diffs.
          TBray: I'll go review that.


     [37] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/#sec-RefUnicode

          TBray: Please refer to chapters 1-3 of Unicode std. If there
          are tech diffs, please bring that out.

          In addition to the jointly defined CCS and encoding forms, the
          Unicode Standard adds normative and informative lists of
          character properties, normative character equivalence and
          normalization specifications, a normative algorithm for
          bidirectional text and a large amount of useful implementation
          information. In short, the Unicode Standard adds semantics to
          the characters that ISO/IEC 10646 merely enumerates.
          Conformance to the Unicode Standard implies conformance t


     [38] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/#sec-RefUnicode

          IJ: I think Unicode has bidi algo, for example.
          MD: Unicode std has bidi algo

          XML 1.1 uses the fact that some chars are punctuation! You
          can't use them in name characters, for example.

          "our note"... are we wordsmithing comment responses? I thought
          CL was quoting the charmod spec.

          XML namespaces use the Unicode char props: cf.

     [39] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/

          TB Proposal: Don't accept this one yet.

          Norm: XML 1.1 uses Unicode properties e.g. you can't use a
          punct character in a NAME

          so for the rest - do we take them to email??

          Action TB: Review charmod language re: reference to Unicode

          TB: not prepared to accept. I will go review latest text. Want
          a strongly-worded pointer to Unicode spec.
          ACTION CL: pull out items that are worth our discussion time
          Due 2 February.
          Addison: i18n group wants to re-publish sometime in
          February.Wants to make sure that they got through the comments
          DC: Publish and I'll tell you if I'm happy
          Addison: would really liike people to look at their feedback on
          CL: will do triage in next 7 days


   The TAG did not discuss topics below this line at this meeting.

  2.5 Findings updates

     * [40]siteData-36
          + "[41]There is no such thing as a Web site"

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
     [41] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/01/08/WebSite36

  2.6 New issue?

     * See TBL comments on [42]XML Canonicalization. For XML Core WG?

     [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0013.html

  2.7 XML Canonicalization

     * Action TBL 2004/01/05: Propose a new issue regarding
       canonicalization to www-tag ([43]Done). PC to respond with
       pointers to relevant specifications ([44]Done).

     [43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0013.html
     [44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0015.html

3. Issues

   Issues that are open and that we expect to close by the end of last
     * [45]rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     * [46]whenToUseGet-7
     * [47]contentTypeOverride-24

     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
     [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#whenToUseGet-7
     [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#contentTypeOverride-24

4. Status report on these findings

   See also [48]TAG findings
     * [49]contentTypeOverride-24:
          + 10 Dec 2003 draft finding "[50]Client handling of MIME
     * [51]abstractComponentRefs-37:
          + 30 Oct 2003 draft finding "[52]Abstract Component References"
     * [53]contentPresentation-26:
          + 30 June 2003 draft finding "[54]Separation of semantic and
            presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
            architecturally sound"
     * [55]metadataInURI-31

     [48] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
     [49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24
     [50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
     [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
     [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31

5 Other action items

     * Action RF 2003/10/08: Explain "identifies" in RFC 2396.
     * Action DC 2003/11/15: Follow up on KeepPOSTRecords with Janet Daly
       on how to raise awareness of this point (which is in CUAP).
     * Action CL 2003/10/27: Draft XML mime type thingy with Murata-san


    Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
    Last modified: $Date: 2004/01/27 00:09:11 $

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Monday, 26 January 2004 19:14:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:03 UTC