review of 19July minutes postponed until they become available
agenda seems OK
next week: NW regrets. PC regrets.
we don't expect SW is available 2 Aug
RESOLVED: to cancel 2 Aug telcon. next meeting: ftf 9-11 Aug
<Norm> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/08/09-11-tag.html
NW: toward having a
good meeting in Basel, "Our goal for this face-to-face is to
leave with a technically complete second Last Call working
draft."
... aiming for publication [n]th of [month?] last call for
about a month.
<Norm> one month
ChrisL: have we started negotiating with peer groups about LC schedule?
NW: no; haven't started
PC notes I18N WG's recent inquiry about LC schedules
ACTION NW: respond to I18N's inquiry about LC schedules, noting TAG's evolving plans
PC: we're hoping to be able to edit the webarch doc during the meeting
NW reviews daily schedule in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/08/09-11-tag.html
NW: we're considering inviting DaveO to participate by phone...
PC: I was in
contact with DaveO; he's considering it among various
obligations
... monday might fit his schedule better
NW: I'm open to monday if others are
DC: likewise
NW: I'll follow up.
PC: I expect DaveO to reply to your earlier message
PC asked about possibility of remote participation by IJ. DanC was thinking we encouraged him to focus on other things.
thanks Paul and NW for preparing the agenda.
Action NW: 2004/07/12: Write XMLChunk-44 as a finding. continues
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to speak to XML Schema action
Action TBL/RF: 2004/05/13 Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document (need to reschedule httpRange-14 when TBL available-single issue telcon? guest?). CONTINUES.
DanC: I asked the XML Schema WG for telcon time; haven't heard back yet...
PaulC: shall I call the chair?
PaulC is excused to call the XML Schema WG chair for a few minutes...
NW: let's continue sorting into OBE, LC-critical, open
-- nottingham1: Second bullet doesn't make sense 1.2.1. Orthogonal Specifications
NW: doesn't look
OBE
... relevant text is still there, though moved
<Chris> I agree thatperformance is the reason in practice (parsing all content to look for headers)
PaulC reached Ezell, who has now seen the request and intends to answer presently, after consulting some XML Schema WG members.
NW: I'd like to be available Thu, but I see that I'm not. so I still prefer Fri.
<Norm> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#orthogonal-specs
<Norm> perhaps
CL: suggest open.
webarch makes a good point here.
... commentor says "it's not deployed because of performance";
perhaps so, but it's also a problem w.r.t. architecture
NW: so...
nottingham1 open?
... so... nottingham1 open.
<Roy> oops, was trying to say it was not a bad idea -- there is a lot more history involved
roy, is that re nottingham1?
<Roy> yes
<Norm> You've fallen off the phone, will you be able to come back, Roy?
do you want the TAG to discuss nottingham1 further?
<Roy> later
we can stick it in LC-critical for now if you like.
i.e. schedule it for discussion later
<Chris> we are saying that even if perfrmance was great, its still a level-breaking architecture problem
<Roy> yes
ok, nottingham1 is LC-critical
-- klyne7 Use other schema than mailto as example
ACTION NW: take klyne7 as editorial.
-- klyne9: Add stronger language on not permitting unregistered URI schemes
CL: yeah... "is discouraged" isn't clear enough. "should not"
ACTION NW: treat klyne9 as editorial
PC: yeah, that text is still there.
-- klyne12: Proposal to drop paragraph on inconsistent frag ids
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#fragid
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#media-type-fragid
NW: odd; greek
letters are still in 3.3.1. CL: yes, see proposed text from my
action. NW: good!
... we've re-written this; it's now in 3.3.2
(CL, you're welcome to write him individually)
NW: klyne9 is OBE.
<Chris> yeah okay
NW: klyne12 is OBE. [rather than klyne9]
-- klyne17: Worth pointing out value of RDF descriptions depends on URI persistence?
CL: commentor not sure or something... NW: open, at least; we've re-written some.
NW: klyne17 open.
-- klyne20: Say something about relationship between Hypertext Web and Semantic Web?
NW: Ian 8Jun rev
seems to deal with this. DC: yes, 4.6.
... klyne20 OBE.
-- klyne21: Add statement about scalability concerns
CL: fair point; hmm... I have an action
NW: klyne21 is LC-critical, to review CL's action
ACTION CL: Draft text to explain that there's a tradeoff in this situation. continues from 14 May 2004
-- klyne25 klyne25: Add reference to RFC3117, section 5.1?
"On the Design of Application Protocols" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3117.txt
sec 5.1 Framing and Encoding
DC: I'm interested to look at it
NW: klyne25 LC-critical.
ACTION DanC: report on study of RFC3117, section 5.1
PC: note BXXP is in the same design space as SOAP... CL: yes, there are probably lots of things written about "Why we did X with XML".
<Chris> The pain of recreating this social infrastructure
<Chris> far outweighs any benefits of devising a new representation. So, if
<Chris> the "make" option is too expensive, is there something else we can
<Chris> "buy" besides XML? Well, there's ASN.1/BER (just kidding).
-- manola17: "Agent" that includes "people" source of confusion
DC: I think this is OBE
NW: manola17 is OBE.
-- manola27: Provide examples of mistaken attempts to restrict URI usage
CL: yes, fair point... e.g. "we assume HTTP" in a format spec would be bad.
NW: manola27 is LC-critical
ACTION CL: draft example ala manola27: Provide examples of mistaken attempts to restrict URI usage
-- i18nwg5: Discussion of content-type header hint
PC: looks like nottingham1
DC/scribe: it's LC-critical.
NW: i18nwg5 is LC-critical, like nottingham1
-- i18nwg8
PC: looks worth discussion. CL: yup
RF: Ian's dealt with this, yes?
PC: yes, but let's look again.
NW: yes, let's look
again
... i18nwg8 is LC-critical
-- i18nwg16: Good practice on URI opacity impossible to follow for humans.
NW: we've changed to "SHOULD NOT"... OBE?
DC: either way...
NW: i18nwg16 is OBE
-- i18nwg19: text/foo+xml considered useless?
CL notes recent Internet Draft relevant to this.
scribe: deprecates this.
<Chris> rfc3023 revision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0016.html
DC: worth reflecting in webarch? NW: I think we do already. OBE.
NW: i18nwg19 is OBE
<Chris> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-00.txt
<Chris> Major differences from [RFC3023] are deprecation of text/xml and
<Chris> text/xml-external-parsed-entity, the addition of XPointer and XML
<Chris> Base as fragment identifiers and base URIs, respectively.
-- i18nwg20
NW: hmm... same slug as 19...
CL: I can see how readers could come to wrong conclusions...
ACTION CL: propose text based on i18nwg20
NW: i18nwg20 is LC-critical
-- rosenberg3: Reuse appropriate URI schemes (and protocols)
"On the use of HTTP as a Substrate" http://rfc.net/rfc3205.html
NW: we have an issue on that...
<Roy> /me I'll check the status of 3205 at next week's IETF
<Chris> http://rfc.net/rfc3205.html
<Chris> Says its a BCP
DC: ah; IJ did this.
NW: rosenberg3 is OBE
<Chris> http://rfc.net/rfc3688.html
ACTION NW: incorporate reference to RFC 3688 per rosenberg
NW: and perhaps bump httpSubstrate up in priority for ftf discussion
<Chris> If the registrant wishes to
<Chris> have a URI assigned, then a URN of the form
<Chris> urn:ietf:params:xml:<class>:<id>
<Chris> will be assigned where <class> is the type of the document being
<Chris> registered (see below). <id> is a unique id generated by the IANA
<Chris> based on any means the IANA deems necessary to maintain uniqueness
<Chris> and persistence.
-- rosenberg5: Proposed reference to IANA registry for namespaces and RFC 3688
NW: rosenberg5 is LC-critical. [cf action above]
--------- TRIAGE DONE! -------------
-- schema12: [3.6.1] [3.6.1] Good practice: Available representation. Too preferential to dereferencable URIs
DC: note telcon negotiations in progress.
ADJOURN.