- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:36:12 +0100
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Minutes of the TAG's 26th July 2004 teleconference are available as HTML [1] and as text below.
Stuart
--
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/26-tag-summary
=======================================================================
Minutes of 26 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/
1. Administrative
1. Roll call. Present: Norm(chair), Dan (scribe), Chris, Paul.
Regrets: TimBL, SW, IJ (possible regrets)
2. Accept the [7]minutes of the 19 July teleconf?
3. Accept this [8]agenda?
4. Next meeting: 02 Aug. Regrets: NW. Possible regrets from IJ
[7] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/19-tag-summary.html
[8] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/26-tag.html
[DanC]
wondering about Roy
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
1.1 Meeting schedule
1. Ottawa meeting update
1. Action NW/PC 2004/06/14: Prepare ftf meeting agenda. See
[9]proposed agenda.
[9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/08/09-11-tag.html
[Norm]
[10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/08/09-11-tag.html
[10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/08/09-11-tag.html
[DanC]
--- Ottawa meeting update
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
[DanC]
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
[11]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.
[11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/08/09-11-tag.html
1.3 TAG Charter
Pending further updates from Team/AB
2. Technical
See also [12]open actions by owner and [13]open issues.
[12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html
[13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1
2.1 Action Item List
1. Action NW 2004/07/12: Write [14]XMLChunk-44 as a finding.
2. 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?)
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#xmlChunk-44
[DanC]
Action NW: 2004/07/12: Write XMLChunk-44 as a finding.
continues
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.
2.5 Web Architecture Document Last Call
2.5.1 Last Call Issues
Review [15]open issues starting with [16]nottingham1.
[15] 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
[16] 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#nottingham1
Chair proposes a two-pass review: first to determine if any of these
issues have been overtaken by events. Then to determine which we need
to resolve.
If we get through the list, weâll go back and begin discussing the
issues we selected as being on the critical path for a second Last
Call draft.
[Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to speak to XML Schema action
[DanC]
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...
----- Web Architecture Document Last Call
NW: let's continue sorting into OBE, LC-critical, open
-- [17]nottingham1: Second bullet doesn't make sense 1.2.1.
Orthogonal Specifications
NW: doesn't look OBE
... relevant text is still there, though moved
[17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#nottingham1
[Chris]
I agree thatperformance is the reason in practice (parsing all
content to look for headers)
[DanC]
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]
[18]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
[19]http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#orthogonal-specs
perhaps
[18] 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
[19] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#orthogonal-specs
[DanC]
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?
NW: so... nottingham1 open.
[Roy]
oops, was trying to say it was not a bad idea -- there is a lot
more history involved
[DanC]
roy, is that re nottingham1?
[Roy]
yes
[Norm]
You've fallen off the phone, will you be able to come back,
Roy?
[DanC]
do you want the TAG to discuss nottingham1 further?
[Roy]
later
[DanC]
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
[DanC]
ok, nottingham1 is LC-critical
-- [20]klyne7 Use other schema than mailto as example
ACTION NW: take klyne7 as editorial.
-- [21]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 ther.
s/ther/there/
-- [22]klyne12: Proposal to drop paragraph on inconsistent frag
ids
[23]http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#fragid
[24]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!
NW: we've re-written this; it's now in 3.3.2
(CL, you're welcome to write him individually)
NW: klyne9 is OBE.
[20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne7
[21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne9
[22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne12
[23] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#fragid
[24] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#media-type-fragid
[Chris]
yeah okay
[DanC]
NW: klyne12 is OBE. [rather than klyne9]
-- [25]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.
-- [26]klyne20: Say something about relationship between
Hypertext Web and Semantic Web?
NW: Ian 8Jun rev seems to deal with this. DC: yes, 4.6.
NW: klyne20 OBE.
-- [27]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
-- [28]klyne25 klyne25: Add reference to RFC3117, section 5.1?
"On the Design of Application Protocols"
[29]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".
[25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne17
[26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne20
[27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne21
[28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#klyne25
[29] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3117.txt
[Chris]
The pain of recreating this social infrastructure
far outweighs any benefits of devising a new representation.
So, if
the "make" option is too expensive, is there something else we
can
"buy" besides XML? Well, there's ASN.1/BER (just kidding).
[DanC]
-- [30]manola17: "Agent" that includes "people" source of
confusion
DC: I think this is OBE
NW: manola17 is OBE.
-- [31]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
-- [32]i18nwg5: Discussion of content-type header hint
PC: looks like nottingham1
DC/scribe: it's LC-critical.
NW: i18nwg5 is LC-critical, like nottingham1
-- [33]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
NW: i18nwg8 is LC-critical
-- [34]i18nwg16: Good practice on URI opacity impossible to
follow for humans.
[30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#manola17
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#manola27
[32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#i18nwg5
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#i18nwg8
[34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#i18nwg16
[Norm]
zakim, who's talking?
[Zakim]
Norm, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the
following: Norm (9%), Roy (9%)
[DanC]
NW: we've changed to "SHOULD NOT"... OBE?
DC: either way...
NW: i18nwg16 is OBE
-- [35]i18nwg19: text/foo+xml considered useless?
CL notes recent Internet Draft relevant to this.
... deprecates this.
[35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#i18nwg19
[Chris]
rfc3023 revision:
[36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0016.ht
ml
[36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0016.html
[DanC]
DC: worth reflecting in webarch? NW: I think we do already.
OBE.
NW: i18nwg19 is OBE
[Chris]
[37]http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murata-kohn-lille
y-xml-00.txt
Major differences from [RFC3023] are deprecation of text/xml
and
text/xml-external-parsed-entity, the addition of XPointer and
XML
Base as fragment identifiers and base URIs, respectively.
[37] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-00.txt
[DanC]
-- [38]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
-- [39]rosenberg3: Reuse appropriate URI schemes (and
protocols)
"On the use of HTTP as a Substrate"
[40]http://rfc.net/rfc3205.html
NW: we have an issue on that...
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#i18nwg20
[39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#rosenberg3
[40] http://rfc.net/rfc3205.html
[Roy]
/me I'll check the status of 3205 at next week's IETF
[Chris]
[41]http://rfc.net/rfc3205.html
Says its a BCP
[41] http://rfc.net/rfc3205.html
[DanC]
DC: ah; IJ did this.
NW: rosenberg3 is OBE
[Chris]
[42]http://rfc.net/rfc3688.html
[42] http://rfc.net/rfc3688.html
[DanC]
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
have a URI assigned, then a URN of the form
urn:ietf:params:xml:<class>:<id>
will be assigned where <class> is the type of the document
being
registered (see below). <id> is a unique id generated by the
IANA
based on any means the IANA deems necessary to maintain
uniqueness
and persistence.
[DanC]
-- [43]rosenberg5: Proposed reference to IANA registry for
namespaces and RFC 3688
NW: rosenberg5 is LC-critical. [cf action above]
--------- TRIAGE DONE! -------------
-- [44]schema12: [1] [1] Good practice: Available
representation. Too preferential to dereferencable URIs
DC: note telcon negotiations in progress.
ADJOURN.
[43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#rosenberg5
[44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#schema12
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
[Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
Attendees were Norm, DanC, Chris, [Microsoft], PaulCotton, Roy
[DanC]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
Chair: NormW
Scribe: DanC
Agenda: [45]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/26-tag.html
Meeting: TAG
Regrets: IJ, SW, TimBL
RRSAgent, pointer?
[45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/26-tag.html
[RRSAgent]
See [46]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T20-15-05
[46] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T20-15-05
[RRSAgent]
I see 8 open action items:
ACTION: NW to respond to I18N's inquiry about LC schedules,
noting TAG's evolving plans [$1\47]
recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-16-01
ACTION: NW to take klyne7 as editorial. [$1\47]
recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-35-25
ACTION: NW to treat klyne9 as editorial [$1\47]
recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-37-03
ACTION: CL to Draft text to explain that there's a tradeoff in
this situation. continues from 14 May 2004 [$1\47]
recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-45-02
ACTION: DanC to report on study of RFC3117, section 5.1 [$1\47]
recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-47-32
ACTION: CL to draft example ala manola27: Provide examples of
mistaken attempts to restrict URI usage [$1\47]
recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-50-25
ACTION: CL to propose text based on i18nwg20 [$1\47]
recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-58-58
ACTION: NW to incorporate reference to RFC 3688 per rosenberg
[$1\47]
recorded in
[54]http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T20-03-44
[47] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-16-01
[48] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-35-25
[49] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-37-03
[50] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-45-02
[51] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-47-32
[52] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-50-25
[53] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T19-58-58
[54] http://www.w3.org/2004/07/26-tagmem-irc#T20-03-44
_________________________________________________________________
2.5.2 Reviews
See the 8 [55]June 2004 Editor's Draft.
* Actions from 2004/06/14:
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 [56]Done[partial]
[57]PDF, [58]HTML)
[Will add references to any other completed reviews submitted for
discussion]
[55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040608/
[56] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jun/0028.html
[57] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/att-0037/webarch-ann-skw.pdf
[58] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/att-0037/webarch-ann-skw-f.html
Resources:
1. [59]Last Call issues list ([60]sorted by section)
2. [61]Annotated version of WebArch
3. Archive of [62]public-webarch-comment
4. [63]List of actions by TAG participant
[59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html
[60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/concerning.html
[61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/webarchWithIssues.html
[62] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/
[63] 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 [64]TAG findings
* [65]abstractComponentRefs-37:
+ 30 Oct 2003 draft finding "[66]Abstract Component References"
* [67]contentPresentation-26:
+ 30 June 2003 draft finding "[68]Separation of semantic and
presentational markup, to the extent possible, is
architecturally sound"
* [69]metadataInURI-31
* [70]siteData-36
+ "[71]There is no such thing as a Web site"
[64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
[65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
[66] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
[67] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#contentPresentation-26
[68] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26-20030630.html
[69] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#metadataInURI-31
[70] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36
[71] 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
_________________________________________________________________
Norman Walsh for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2004/09/01 12:19:32 $
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2004 15:36:46 UTC