- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:34:34 +0100
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello,
The minutes of the TAG's 12 July 2004 teleconference are available as HTML
[1] and as text below.
Stuart
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/12-tag-summary.html
========================================================
Minutes of 12 July 2004 TAG teleconference
Nearby: [3]Teleconference details - [4]issues list ([5]handling new
issues) - [6]www-tag archive
[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/#remote
[4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0054.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/
0. A new addition
Resolved The TAG extends its heartiest support and congratulations to
Ian and Valerie on the arrival of their daughter.
1. Administrative
1. Roll call. SW (chair), NW (scribe), CL, DC, RF, TBL, PC. Regrets:
IJ :-)
2. Resolved to accept the [7]minutes of the 28 June teleconf?
3. Accepted this [8]agenda?
4. Next meeting: 19 July. Norm Walsh to Chair. Likely regrets: TBL,
PC. Regrets from IJ.
5. Action SW 2004/06/28: Send an ack re DO/TB editing roles on
www-tag. [9]Done
[7] http://www.w3.org/2004/06/28-tag-summary.html
[8] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/12-tag.html
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0007.html
1.0.1 AOB
1. SW reported that he had asked PC who as agreed to prepare our
monthly summaries for the AC.
1.1 Meeting schedule
Action TAG 2004/06/07: Send summer regrets to TAG list.
1. Ottawa meeting update
1. Action NW/PC 2004/06/14: Prepare ftf meeting agenda. See
[10]email from Paul
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jun/0028.html
[Norm]
No updates for Ottawa local arrangements.
NW/PC will publish an agenda shortly after 21 July
Regrets from DO
1.3 TAG Charter
Pending further updates from Team/AB
[Norm]
No news
2. Technical
See also [11]open actions by owner and [12]open issues.
[11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html
[12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1
2.1 Action Item List
1. Proposal on done/moot action items: see [13]email from SW
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jul/0007.html
[Norm]
CL reports completing his action
2.2 IRI draft status in IETF
1. Action CL 2004/06/28: Tidy up [14]draft and send to I18N WG,
copying www-tag (as a response to [15]Addison).
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jun/0085.html
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jun/0015.html
[Chris]
uri for my closed action
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2004Jul/000
6.html
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2004Jul/0006.html
2.3 httpRange-14 status
1. Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close
httpRange-14, text for document.
Propose: Roy's action close by [17]email. Will need to reschedule
httpRange-14 when TBL available - single issue telcon? guest?
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004May/0049.html
[Norm]
Action TBL/RF continued
2.4 [18]XMLChunk-44
[18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#xmlChunk-44
1. Action NW 2004/05/12:
"Write up a named equivalence function based on today's discussion
(e.g., based on infoset, augmented with xml:lang/xml:base, not
requiring prefixes, etc.)."
[19]See email from Norm
2. Next steps...??
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jun/0026.html
[Norm]
NW action complete
NW suggests we could add markup and turn it into a finding
Some discussion of what the appropriate next steps are. Some
concern expressed that the world won't care.
[DanC]
asking I18N seems worthwhile
[Chris]
explicitly saying that lang would have been a good infoset
property would be clearer. it should have been but isn't.
timbl++ on the 'it would have been nice if' finding. Valuable
for next round of rechartering for example
[DanC]
yup. "if we're ever back in this design space, let's do it this
way next time..."
[Chris]
i hea timbl proposing this and Chris and Paul seconding
[Norm]
Some discussion of possible next steps
[Chris]
don't hear any contrary opinions
[DanC]
I note this unspecified nature of infoset equality is relevant
to a (last call?) comment I sent re XQuery
PROPOSED: nw write up xmlchunk proposal, adding a bit of
history: how we got here, where we might go if we had it to do
over again
[paulc]
+1
[DanC]
found my comments on xquery that are relevant to infoitem
equality: XML query constructors: not well-defined
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-query-comments/
2001Apr/0014.html
[20]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-query-comments/2001Apr/0014.html
[Norm]
TBL wants emphasis on where we might go if were doing it again
[timbl]
+1
[DanC]
you might look at "if we had it to do over again" as, rather
"in case we're back this way again"
[Norm]
Resolved.
ACTION: NW to (re)draft his mail as a finding along those lines
2.5 Web Architecture Document Last Call
2.5.1 Heartbeat Requirement
Note publication of 5th July 2004 TR page [21]WD See [22]email from IJ
[21] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040705/
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0001.html
[Norm]
TAG thanks IJ for publishing the new WD
2.5.2 Reviews
See the 8 [23]June 2004 Editor's Draft.
* Action CL 2004/05/14 revised to:
Rewrite story at beginning of 3.3.1 and paragraph that follows.
After those edits, review the rest of section 3.3.1 in the 8 June
draft to see if it makes sense as a whole.
* Actions from 2004/06/14:
DC to review section 2 of 8 June draft. (Done)
PC to review sections 1, 5, and 6 of 8 June draft.
CL to review section 4 of 8 June draft.
SW, NW to review entire 8 June draft. (SW [24]Done[partial]
[25]PDF, [26]HTML)
[Will add references to any other completed reviews submitted for
discussion]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040608/
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jun/0028.html
[25]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/att-0037/webarch-ann
-skw.pdf
[26]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/att-0037/webarch-ann
-skw-f.html
[paulc]
My review is pending. It got lost in F2F meetings and then
vacation.
[Norm]
CL action continued
PC action continued
NW action continued
(all this is under 2.5.2: reviews of the arch doc)
[DanC]
the Query WG responded, Norm. They said "indeed, those things
that look like functions aren't functions, in the f(x,y) =
f(x,y) sense. Deal."
[Norm]
SW: Meaning and authority comments are probably the biggest
SW (of the ones I sent)
[Stuart]
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0005.ht
ml
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0005.html
[Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask about moving generalities to the end...
[28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jun/0020.ht
ml
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jun/0020.html
[DanC]
ah... done. [29]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040705/
[29] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040705/
[Norm]
TAG moves on to discuss SW comment #20
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/att
-0037/webarch-ann-skw-f.html
[30]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/att-0037/webarch-ann
-skw-f.html
[Stuart]
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/att
-0037/webarch-ann-skw-f.html#_msoanchor_20
[31]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/att-0037/webarch-ann
-skw-f.html#_msoanchor_20
[Norm]
SW: [skw20]I think I'd make the point that protocols promote
interoperability while API's promote application/implementation
portability. Both are important. The two become entangled when
message content contains scripts or behaviours that the
recipient is expected to execute. To be interoperable the
script writer has to assume the existence of a run-time
environment and may have to probe for the existence of API
features in order to be fully interoperable.
PC: I think the point is that APIs are different than protocols
[Chris]
i agree with norm, that is the main point
[Norm]
TBL: When characterizing either case, we're talking about the
interface between two software modules. APIs are modules in the
same process, protocols are greatly separated modules, perhaps
not even on the same machine.
TBL: Because they are remote, the practical arrangements around
protocols are very different.
TBL: APIs can rely on being updated monolithically.
TBL: It's worth noting particularly that the protocol will
outlive the applications.
TBL: It's a mistake to talk about which you should do because
you always have to do both
TBL: You still have APIs between software modules in the same
process.
TBL: The web is better designed because it's done in terms of
protocols. Some folks have tried to do APIs in this space and
have found that it's a mistake.
SW: My point was that APIs aid in code portability and
protocols aid in application portability.
Stuart: did I get that right?
[Stuart]
Nor... APIs aid portability, protocols aid interoperability.
[Norm]
ty
ACTION: SW to propose concrete changes to the text along these
lines.
SKW 21
SKW 21: Delete "In order to communicate internally, a community
agrees (to a reasonable extent) on a set of terms and their
meanings."
[Stuart]
[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/att
-0037/webarch-ann-skw-f.html#_msoanchor_21
[32]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/att-0037/webarch-ann
-skw-f.html#_msoanchor_21
[Norm]
SW: I think it opens up problems.
DC: It opened actual problems that we've subsequently resolved
DC: It used to say "across communities"
SW: I won't push too hard, I thought it opened philosophical
issues
[Chris]
that would imply a need to define 'communities' ....
[Norm]
SW: Withdraws comment.
[DanC]
wondering how Ian communicated changes to the readership, I
find lots of details in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/changes
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/changes
[Norm]
SW: (SKW38) I'm not sure what point is being made
NW: This is more text that went through a lot of massaging to
be acceptable
2.5.3.1 Discussion of how we moving forward.
[Norm]
SW: We have a last call document in December, how do we keep
track of what comments apply to which documents
CL: Essentially, all of the comments are relevant to the last
call draft.
DC: We should make some best effort to deal with all of them
and then do another last call
TBL: We have to alert people who sent comments we didn't even
address
DC: I disagree.
PC: You mean we won't publish a D-o-C?
DC: Right.
CL: It would be much better to be able to at least say which
ones we don't think we addressed
TBL: Or if we've redraft so we can't really tell
s/redraft/redrafted/
NW: We should use "overtaken by events"
PC: We should be telling people that now, if we think it's
true.
[DanC]
yes, "we should" be doing lots of stuff. I only take issue with
"we must"
[Stuart]
[34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=nor
mal&closed=1
[34]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1
[Norm]
We need to solve the issue list management problem
[DanC]
it would be _nice_ to solve the issue list management problem.
we do _not_ _need_ to solve it.
[Stuart]
Last update: $Date: 2004/07/13 16:21:36 $
[Norm]
PC: We need to be able to publish a list of changes in the
status section
[DanC]
DC: please let's not make that critical path
[Norm]
PC: I'm overwhelmed that you believe that process, which seems
risky and crude, is going to be acceptable. I've never seen it
done.
[Norm]
DC: What did you do with all the WDs before Last Call? Just did
your best right.
[Norm]
DC: I've put about as much energy as I can into the current
comments list
SW: I think we have to do something towards addressing Pat
Hayes' comments and we have to do some work on authority and
ownership.
SW: I think the C/D problem still exists in some places
DC: Anyone who's read a comment and thinks we should work on
it, then we should work on it
[ChrisL]
this is a good view:
[Norm]
PC: So, between now and the f2f, TAG members should identify
those comments that we should deal with. And as soon as
possible after the f2f, we address those comments, and go to
second last call.
[ChrisL]
[35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=wg&
closed=1&expert=1&editorial=1&clarification=1&stateAgreed=1&sta
teDeclined=1&stateSubsumed=1
[35]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=wg&closed=1&expert=1
&editorial=1&clarification=1&stateAgreed=1&stateDeclined=1&stateSubsumed=1
[Norm]
PC: The status would say that we think we've done a lot of work
and the document should be reviewed a second time.
DC: Yes. A D-o-C would be gravy, but it's not critical path for
me.
DC: I don't feel we've been rude to anybody.
PC: I was hypothesising, but perhaps that's not the reaction
that we'd get.
PC: How long should the second last call?
DC: A month, maybe five weeks, I dunno.
[ChrisL]
given summer vacations, 6 weeks seems advisable
[Norm]
PC: That seems to put an action on the TAG members to review
the comments list
[DanC]
it's about 5.6 screenfuls.
[Norm]
CL: Points us to a feasible set based on hiding editorial and
other issues.
Our agenda next week will be to look at this list.
ADJOURNED
Resources:
1. [36]Last Call issues list ([37]sorted by section)
2. [38]Annotated version of WebArch
3. Archive of [39]public-webarch-comment
4. [40]List of actions by TAG participant
[36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/concerning.html
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/webarchWithIssues.html
[39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/
[40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/actions_owner.html
_________________________________________________________________
The TAG did not discuss issues below this line.
3. Status report on these findings
See also [41]TAG findings
* [42]abstractComponentRefs-37:
+ 30 Oct 2003 draft finding "[43]Abstract Component References"
* [44]contentPresentation-26:
+ 30 June 2003 draft finding "[45]Separation of semantic and
presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
architecturally sound"
* [46]metadataInURI-31
* [47]siteData-36
+ "[48]There is no such thing as a Web site"
[41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
[42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
[43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
[44]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
[45]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
[46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
[47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
[48] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/01/08/WebSite36
4. Other action items
* 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
_________________________________________________________________
Stuart Williams for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2004/07/13 16:21:36 $
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 12:37:38 UTC