W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2005

Re: minutes TAG 22 Feb for review

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:22:21 +0000
Message-ID: <421C9FAD.6050408@hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, dorchard@bea.com
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Dan Connolly wrote:

>Please review:
> Technical Architecture Group (TAG) Weekly Teleconference -- 22 Feb 2005
> http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes.html
> $Revision: 1.14 $ of $Date: 2005/02/22 21:15:26 $
>Plain text copy attached.

>  issue review. abstractComponentRefs-37
>   DO: this came from a request from the web services description WG...
>   ... (1) when we come up with a component designator, is it designating an
>   abstract component, or a piece of syntax in the WSDL doc?
>   ... (2) [missed?]
>   ... and the TAG said: (1) designates abstract component (2) we discussed
>   lots of options and said "yeah, the one in your WD is OK"
>   ( trying to confirm that we've approved this finding...
>   [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030 )
FWIW I am not aware that the draft finding has been approved by the TAG.

[Just because I've been digging to remind myself of some of the history]

We resolved the question raised by Jonathan Marsh [1] at our Bristol 
meeting [2] along with an action  to David:

    NW: note that the latest JMarsh proposal has no parens or anything,
    very nice & clean 
    Resolved: Using fragid is not only acceptable but preferable. We
    like the 0075 solutions with s/?/#/ 
    DO: and to update draft finding saying that we like the latest best
    of all the ones we've seen 
    Action DO: Write up this resolution in his finding on

I'm also surprised that I have been unable to find any trace of  us 
reporting that resolution to the WSD-WG (other than implicitly by 
updating the finding).

The revised draft finding was announced by Ian in Nov 2003 [3].

Unfortunately I can find no record of significant discussion of the 
finding at our subsequent F2F in Japan [4] (or subsequently :-( )... in 
particular Section 1 of the finding titled "TAG Recommendation".

FWIW I think the draft finding looks substantially complete and I 
apologise to David that we appear to have failed to discuss it 
substantially since it was last published.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0042.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2003/10/06-tag-summary#abstractComponentRefs-37
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Nov/0008.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/2003/11/15-tag-summary.html
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 15:26:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:07 UTC