- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:03:33 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1079741013.1113.8.camel@seabright>
Hello,
Minutes of the TAG's 15 March teleconference are
available as HTML [1] and as text below.
_ Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/15-tag-summary.html
=================================================
Minutes of 15 March 2004 TAG teleconference
1. Administrative (20min)
1. Roll call: RF, TBL (Scribe), NW, PC, SW, CL, MJ, DC. Regrets: IJ
2. The TAG did not yet accept the minutes of the [7]2 Mar ftf meeting
(TAG participants have not yet reviewed).
3. Accepted this [8]agenda
4. Resolved next meeting: 22 March. No regrets indicated.
5. FTF meeting in April or May (c.f [9]online form)?
Resolved to meet in BOS 12-14 May, subject to consultation with
IJ. All agreed except RF who abstained.
[7] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/02-tag-summary.html
[8] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/15-tag.html
[9] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34270/tagftfmay2004/
1.1 Tim Bray resigning from TAG
Tim Bray joined the beginning of the meeting and announced that he is
resigning from the TAG due to [10]W3C Process constraints on the
number of participants from the same Member. The TAG resolved
unanimously to thank Tim Bray for his contributions.
[10] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/organization.html#AB-TAG-constraints
2. Technical (70min)
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 Formal approval of Qname finding
* [13]qnameAsId-18
+ 14 Jan 2004 draft finding "[14]Using Qualified Names (QNames)
as Identifiers in Content"
[13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#qnameAsId-18
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids-2004-01-14
At the ftf meeting we did not formally approve NW's finding. Proposed
to publish the 14 Jan draft as an approved finding using the usual
mechanisms.
Stuart: QnameAsId finding - wee have approved this as a finding, but
we have not resolved to publish it as a note. I propose we approve it
as a finding and leave any question as to publishing on the TR page to
another time.
Chris: seconded.
timbl: RESOLVED: we approve it as a finding
timbl: ACTION NW: Publish [15]Using Qualified Names (QNames) as
Identifiers in Content as an approved TAG finding.
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids-2004-01-14
2.2 Internationalization Issues
2.2.1 TAG review of "Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0:
Fundamentals"
See [16]25 Feb 2004 WD of Charmod Fundamentals
* [17]Review by Tim Bray (and following thread)
* Relation to [18]charmodReview-17?
1. [19]actions
2. TAG finding related to adoption of Charmod? See [20]mail from
TBL
[16] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-charmod-20040225/
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Mar/0007.html
[18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#charmodReview-17
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions.html#charmodReview-17
[20] http://www.w3.org/mid/361483C6-96E6-11D7-9C47-000393914268@w3.org
timbl: Chris took on the task of reviewing the Charmod spec; see
[21]email from CL.
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Mar/0041.html
Chris: I am part way through. We should ask for a week's extention.
Stuart: I'll ask for a 2 week extension.
DanC_: (I owe a review too. sorry, I'm running late)
Chris: I have found one new issue -- mailed just before this meeting
started.
timbl: ACTION Stuart: Negotiate an extension of ideally 2 weeks with
I18N WG for the review of CharMod.
Chris: (the new issue - On the other hand, I worry that this might
encourage people to encode pi or symbol fonts on the ascii range,
which is worse than using the PUA! The spec could explicitly discuss
this case.
2.2.2 Status report regarding TAG's URI/IRI issues
* [22]URIEquivalence-15
* [23]IRIEverywhere-27
[22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#URIEquivalence-15
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#IRIEverwhere-27
Stuart: In the meeting that Chris and I attended, we asked Martin to
report back on their publishing schedules for the IRI draft.
Chris: I had thought that they are in RFC queue - but RFC2396 bis is
not in last call yet.
Roy: RFC2396 bis is still in WG not yet LC or RFC.
DanC_: (RFC2396bis last call will be 4 weeks, rather than 2, since
there's no WG. I think.)
timbl: ... The IRI draft could go to RFC with a prointer to the RFC
stage with normative reference to 2496bis, with instructions to the
RFC editor top update teh pointer iff the RFC2396bis spec coems
though.
DanC_: hmm... IRI is in the IETF standards process? I despair of being
able to track this stuff.
Timbl Notes that that is an interesting procedure.
Roy: It wouldn't become an RFC spec until the normative refs all
become RFCs.
Chris: please note my charmod review-in-progress also halt at
precisely the IRI issue
Zakim: Chris, you wanted to talk about IRI and to say what I said in
email
DanC: This may delay the arch doc past the end of the year, (which was
the subject of a bet and a dinner!)
Chris: Many specs have IRIs in already.
DanC: The fundamentals issue should be of stuff which is not at risk.
DanC_: I'm surprised. hmm... gotta study further to see if I find it
OK.
Chris: 7 Character Encoding in URI References
Chris: IRI also normative in XMLNamespace 1.1 for example
Stuart: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/webarchWithIssues.html
Chris: the stuff in section 7 is already widely deployed. eg IE6 (5,
4) and Google use this all the time
2.3 Update on namespaceDocument-8
* [24]namespaceDocument-8
1. Review finding outline from PC
2. Agree to next steps w.r.t. RDDL Note and Finding.
[24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8
IJ believes that namespaceDocument-8 was not discussed.
2.4 Web Architecture Document Last Call
Resources:
1. [25]Last Call issues list ([26]sorted by section)
2. [27]Annotated version of WebArch
3. Archive of [28]public-webarch-comments
4. [29]List of actions by TAG participant
5. Additional actions
1. Action IJ 2004/02/09: Incorporate editorial suggestions (see
minutes of that meeting for details).
[25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html
[26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/concerning.html
[27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/webarchWithIssues.html
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/
[29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/actions_owner.html
timbl: Stuart: I would like people to take on these clusters of
comments; see issues list [30]sorted by section.
[30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/concerning.html
timbl: DanC: We just pasted the comments into the relevant parts of
the spec. Ian did the difficult bit of linking the issue to the
anchor.
timbl:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#identifiers-comparison
timbl: DanC: It would be nice to be able to group these if they are
one comment. I have not found a lot of inspiration as to what to do
next.
timbl: Chris: I volunteer to look at 4 Data Formats
DanC_: yes, timbl, do look at RFC2396bis
* Norm apologizes. Must leave at 16:00 (in 12 min)
* DanC_ is working on a view with editorial stuff in a different
color...
* mario would be happy to volunteer for section 4 also if Chris does
not mind
Actions (due 25 March?) to review sections:
* TBL: I volunteer 2 hours starting at start of section 2
* Roy: I volunteer to look at section 2
* Norm: I volunteer for section 3
* Stuart: I volunteer starting at section 2.3
* Mario: I will look at section 4
Norm gives his excuses and leaves the meeting.
Issue pps1: Ownership and authority
[31]Issue pps1, concerning sections 2.2 and 3.4
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#pps1
Chris: ok so he is saying that the weather page does not own the
weather.to which we say, correct, but they own their report on the
weather. It seems easy to answer - he is just confused between the
weather and the report
SW: We talk about URIs being owned, and resources, and making an
assigtnment.
timbl: ... we talk about authority and ownership and we are not very
clear with respect to URIs or resources
Zakim: Chris, you wanted to say that
Zakim: DanC_, you wanted to say well, we gave it a try, but maybe this
isn't good use of our time after all... I'm ok to adjourn, despite my
bet with PaulC
Chris: 'ownership' also needs to discuss syndication, and syndicated
data as (part of) a resource
I suggest the only way to make this clearer would be a formal
description.
Stuart: We will be addressing web arch last call comments. I will need
input for next week's agenda.
Stuart will review the agenda of next week on Thursday.
TimBL: Doesn't work for me.
Chris: ok, but we can do tims bit the week after
DanC_: FYI: W3C/MIT moves office Wed 24Mar. LOOK OUT!
timbl: Tim'ls action item for 10 day's time.
_________________________________________________________________
The TAG did not discuss issues below this line.
1.1 Review of open action items related to issues
The TAG expects to review the list of [32]open actions by owner and to
close any that are obvious to close. TAG participants are encouraged
to review this list before the meeting, as well as other action items
listed in this agenda.
[32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html
3. Status report on these findings
See also [33]TAG findings
* [34]abstractComponentRefs-37:
+ 30 Oct 2003 draft finding "[35]Abstract Component References"
* [36]contentPresentation-26:
+ 30 June 2003 draft finding "[37]Separation of semantic and
presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
architecturally sound"
* [38]metadataInURI-31
* [39]siteData-36
+ "[40]There is no such thing as a Web site"
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
[34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
[35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
[36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
[39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
[40] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/01/08/WebSite36
4. Other action items
* Action PC/IJ: Proposed revised [41]TAG charter
* 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
[41] http://www.w3.org/2001/07/19-tag
_________________________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2004/03/19 23:55:43 $
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 19:04:23 UTC