- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:26:30 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1088097990.6783.37.camel@seabright>
Hello,
The agenda for the TAG's 28 June 2004 teleconf is available
as HTML [1] and as text below.
_ Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/06/28-tag.html
===========================================================
Agenda of 28 June 2004 TAG teleconference
1. Administrative
1. Roll call. Regrets: TBL, SW, IJ
2. Accept the [8]minutes of the 14 June teleconf?
3. Accept this [9]agenda?
4. Next meeting: 12 July. Likely regrets: TBL. Possible regrets from
IJ.
5. Action TBL 2004/05/12: Talk to TB and DO about editor role.
([10]Proposal from SW that this is done).
SW: Ack of continuing involvement/editing in some forum?
6. IJ to be acting W3C Head of Communications 1 July. IJ expects to
help NW with editing, but otherwise setting low expectations for
TAG participation during the summer and early fall.
[8] http://www.w3.org/2004/06/14-tag-summary.html
[9] http://www.w3.org/2004/06/14-tag.html
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jun/0071.html
1.1 Meeting schedule
Action TAG 2004/06/07: Send summer regrets to TAG list.
1. AC meeting [11]rescheduled for 2-3 December. Does this affect
whether to hold TAG ftf meeting in November?
2. Ottawa meeting update?
1. Action NW/PC 2004/06/14: Prepare ftf meeting agenda. See
[12]email from Paul.
2. Should we ask DO to attend the meeting if extensioning and
versioning is on the agenda?
[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2004AprJun/0050.html
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Jun/0028.html
1.3 TAG Charter
Action IJ 2004/06/07: Report back on next AB meeting to discuss TAG
charter and relation to patent policy. See [13]AB meeting summary,
which essentially states that they think the policy applies, but no
consensus yet on how.
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2004AprJun/0066.html
2. Technical
See also [14]open actions by owner and [15]open issues.
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1
2.1 xml11Names-46
Was [16]Norm email forwarded to the XML CG?
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jun/0004.html
2.2 httpRange-14 status
Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close
httpRange-14, text for document.
2.3 IRI draft status in IETF
Action CL 2004/06/14: Draft text basd on 14 June discussion and send
to TAG for review.
2.4 Web Architecture Document Last Call
2.4.1 Heartbeat Requirement
Should we request that 8 June draft be published on the TR page?
2.4.2 Reviews
See the 8 [17]June 2004 Editor's Draft.
* Action NW 2004/05/14: Propose text on tradeoffs for section 4.2.2.
* Action CL 2004/05/14: Rewrite story at beginning of 3.3.1.
Consider deleting para that follows last sentence third para after
story in 3.3.1. "Note also that since dereferencing a URI (e.g.,
using HTTP) does not involve sending a fragment identifier to a
server or other agent, certain access methods (e.g., HTTP PUT,
POST, and DELETE) cannot be used to interact with secondary
resources."
* Action TBL 2004/06/08: For issue hawke7, ask Sandro for
clarification on whether second URI should have "#". Done: Sandro
said that the hashes were not the point, but that the point was
that in the context of dereferencing, it does matter which URI you
use. Note: IJ has removed the paragraph in the 8 June draft.
[17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040608/
Actions from 2004/06/14:
1. DC to review section 2 of 8 June draft.
2. PC to review sections 1, 5, and 6 of 8 June draft.
3. CL to review section 4 of 8 June draft.
4. SW, NW to review entire 8 June draft.
Resources:
1. [18]Last Call issues list ([19]sorted by section)
2. [20]Annotated version of WebArch
3. Archive of [21]public-webarch-comments
4. [22]List of actions by TAG participant
[18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/concerning.html
[20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/webarchWithIssues.html
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/
[22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/actions_owner.html
_________________________________________________________________
The TAG does not expect to discuss issues below this line.
3. Status report on these findings
See also [23]TAG findings
* [24]abstractComponentRefs-37:
+ 30 Oct 2003 draft finding "[25]Abstract Component References"
* [26]contentPresentation-26:
+ 30 June 2003 draft finding "[27]Separation of semantic and
presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
architecturally sound"
* [28]metadataInURI-31
* [29]siteData-36
+ "[30]There is no such thing as a Web site"
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
[24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
[25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
[26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
[27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
[28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
[29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
[30] 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
_________________________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2004/06/24 17:12:05 $
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 13:27:28 UTC