W3C | TAG | Previous: 25 Nov teleconf | Next: 9 Dec 2002
teleconf
Minutes of 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference
Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details · issues list · www-tag archive
1. Administrative
- Roll call: All present. SW (Chair), TBL, DC, TB, CL, PC, NW, DO, RF, IJ
(Scribe).
- Accepted 18 Nov minutes
- Accepted 25 Nov minutes
- Accepted this agenda
- Accepted draft
summary of TAG work from previous month (with changes suggested by DC
and additions from this meeting). IJ to include TB's draft finding on URI
comparison in summary.
- Next meeting: 9 Dec 2002
1.1 Completed actions
- Action IJ: 2002/11/25: Update rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 to indicate
waiting on WSDL WG.
- Action IJ: Remove "Status of discussions with WSA WG about
SOAP/WSDL/GET/Query strings" from agenda, make sure that issues list
whenToUseGet-7 tracks this open state.
1.2 Meeting planning
- [NOT DISCUSSED] Next TAG ftf: 6-7 Feb 2003 in Irvine, CA (USA)
1.3 Other business?
The TAG discussed its slide presentation from the W3C Advisory Committee
meeting.
- Action TB: Send proposed changes to SW
slides to tag@w3.org.
- Action NW: Create updated slides for XML
2002 presentation.
- Action IJ: Update SW slides with pointer to
NW slides (and refer to TB comments).
2. Technical (75min)
Possible new issues:
- SOAP and XML internal subset
- Binary XML
- Metadata in URIs
- Postponed issues
- Arch Doc/Findings
See message
from Paul Grosso
[DanCon]
- yes, please; I don't want to take this up until the XMLP WG has
responded to a "don't subset XML" request.
- [Ian]
- DO: I think this is an important arch issue. I think it should have
been sent earlier to XMLP WG. But having said that, the topic of
subsetting has come up before. I'm on the record of wanting a next
generation of profiles. I think the TAG ought to bring up this issue
and consider the arch ramifications of profiles of XML specs.
- TB: I agree with DO. The IETF's
BCP says "don't do this." For the case of SOAP, I think they have
overwhelming technical arguments for their design choice (namely, avoid
risk of denial of service attacks). I think that in general, subsetting
XML is probably not wise for the reasons cited by the IETF authors.
There is a recurring desire of some groups to do this; that signal
should be looked at.
- [Zakim]
- Timmit, you wanted to agree we should take up issue and to suggest
that original WG should be heavily involved and/or in charge when a
profile is made of any spec.
- [Ian]
- TBL: I agree we should accept the issue. While there is a WG that is
responsible for this work, I think it's important that that WG do the
work. We should not establish the precedent that one group can profile
the work of another (notably cross-organizational boundaries). We can
discuss it, with an option to return to the XML Core WG with a request
to produce a profile.
- [Zakim]
- DanCon, you wanted to express a preference for having PaulG/XMLCore
make a request to XMLP WG before we accept this
- [Ian]
- DC: If we accept this as an issue, can we immediately contact both
WGs to ensure that they know they are represented?: One possibility: do
this by email or in a teleconf. I would prefer that Paul write to the
XMLP WG and get their reply on record.
- NW: There's a lot of editorial work, not much technical benefit,
unclear political ramifications of such an exercise. By "political" I
mean that it's not clear what buy-in would be obtained from vendors and
parser authors, etc. I'm not sure that's really "political" but it's
more than purely technical.
- DO: I think that Paul Grosso should ask the XMLP WG for their
rationale, and that the TAG is interested in that reply. I believe that
Chair of XMLP WG is interested in providing information on this
topic.
- PC: On the IETF BCP - does this apply when XML used as the basis of a
protocol?: TBL talks about profiles as though they were bad; but
profiles happen all the time within W3C.
- [DaveO]
- I wonder if there are at least two profiles: "non-protocol" and
"protocol".
- [Ian]
- PC: I'm not sure that the TAG can do anything about on group
profiling (or not profiling) the work of another group.
- [DanCon]
- I don't think TimBL suggested lockstep; I think he just meant that if
XMLP wants to profile XML, the WG working on XML should get the right
of review
- [Ian]
- PC: There's a long history on this topic (going back to Sep 2001, at
least, see message
on xml-dist-app) regarding SOAP. I think it is appropriate to tell
Paul G to talk to the XMLP WG. We can give him some pointers to the
public record.
- TB Proposal:
- We should officially respond to PaulG saying that there is some
history and that it would be appropriate to direct his query to the
XMLP WG to ensure that the evidence is brought out for review.
- Propose TAG adopts subsetXML issue, based on the fact that XML
doesn't provide a means for subsetting. Some people (like me) think
that it's bad to subset XML. But some groups still want to do this,
and some groups have good reasons for doing so.
- [DanCon]
- hmm... I thought the subsetting XPath case was directly relevant. the
name "subsettingXML" seems exclusive of that.
- [DaveO]
- Dan, what is "XML"?
- [DanCon]
- a language defined in the XML 1.0 recommendation, I think.
- [DaveO]
- Is XML=XML 1.* + namespaces + xpath + dom + xquery + xslt?
- [Norm]
- DaveO: XML is http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml
- [Ian]
- TB: The XMLP WG has evidence that subsetting will be sometimes
necessary.: It's not reasonable for SOAP 1.2 to wait for a revised
XML.
- [Norm]
- DaveO: XML++ might include namespaces, base, et. al.
- [Ian]
- DO: Friendly amendment to TB's (2). Not just an issue of subsetting
XML, but rather among the family of XML specs.
- TB: Retitle as profileXML.: Change wording "XML family of
specifications"
- DC: "Profiling W3C specs" would be fine.
- [PaulC]
- You don't conform to XPath. You conform to XPointer or XSLT.
- [Ian]
- DC: Flavors of a language are evil. Sometimes you need profiles, but
there is a cost to interoperability. Profiles are to be avoided.
- RF: What you want with a profile of XML is to make it possible to
implement software.
- [TBray]
- http://www.textuality.com/xml/xmlSW.html
- [PaulC]
- I agree with Tim's amended resolution of this item but I would like
to see a clear statement of the "XML family of specification"
issue.
- [Ian]
- RF: General purpose servers implement HTTP differently from
specific-purpose servers. There are limits on URIs, size of request
header. Apps need to be able to define these things on their own. Not
limits on the protocol, but limits on the implementation of the
protocol.
- [PaulC]
- Re XPath, I guess you could also conform to the new DOM API +
XPath.
- [Ian]
- TB: I agree with DC - one of the good things about XML historically
is that it's much more option-free than other specs. Clearly this
approach is running into trouble. I've put a stake in the ground about
which specs to group together (XML, namespaces, base) so that profiling
not necessary.
- TBL: Things will break if some parsers understand entities and others
don't.
- [TBray]
- hmmm... sounds reasonable
- [Zakim]
- Timmit, you wanted to say that http example is more -- what happens
if an http server doesn't implement HEAD?
- [DanCon]
- issue profilePlussesAndMinuses-NNN
- issue profilesNecessaryEvil-NNN
- [Ian]
- PC: Wasn't this on the XML Core WG agenda at some point?
- DO: Yes, they are chartered to do this.
- TB: Maybe it suffices to say to the XML Core WG that we think this
should be moved up their list of priorities.
- NW: No one I know of is chomping at the bit to address this; seems
like a lot of work, without much promise of payoff. If we want this
work done, we should ask the Core WG.
- TB: Don't phrase this as "Do XML 2.0". If we think there's a problem
here (and I think evidence suggests there is), we could profitably
invest some time in how we get a solution. Will be hard to disentangle
tech from process issues.
- DO: This issue has also come up in WSA WG.
- NW: The major issues here are not technical.: The Core WG has
discussed this.
- DO: What information can be conveyed here?
- TB: Let's toss this out into www-tag.
- NW: If we want to engage the Core WG, we should invite Paul Grosso to
a meeting where this is discussed.
- [Zakim]
- DanCon, you wanted to propose: profilesNecessaryEvil-NNN
- [Ian]
- SW: I have concerns about our communications with other groups.
- DC: We should accept issue and PC/DO and NW should ask the groups how
they want to be represented here.
- IJ: Title of this issue?
- [PaulC]
- I don't want us to send an appeal to www-tag on this front since I
want the negotiatiation with the Chairs and WGs to occur first.
- [Ian]
- TB: Whither and how to profile W3C specifications in the XML
Family
- DC: I object to "in the XML Family"
- DO: I feel strongly about "in the XML Family"
- TBL: I feel that the profiling issue applies to other issues as
well.
- [DanCon]
- he didn't say "feel strongly"; he (DaveO) observed that the XML
family is what we've been talking about
- [Ian]
- DO: I'd like to examine the issue w.r.t. the scope of things in the
XML family of specs.
- TBL: If the comment is "necessary evil" then it applies to all our
specs.
- CL: We have two issues (general and specific).
- SW Proposed: Accept profilesNecessaryEvil-NNN as new issue.
- DO: I object.
- [Chris]
- I don't like it either
- [Ian]
- Objections: PC, CL, TB.
- TB Proposed: xmlProfilesNecessaryEvil.
- CL: I don't like "necessary evil"; presupposes an outcome.
- [Chris]
- XMLProfilesNeeded?-nnn
- [DaveO]
- XMLProfiles
- [Ian]
- Proposed: xmlProfiles.
- [TBray]
- issue xmlProfiles-NNN: When, whether and how to profile the XML
family of recommendation
- [Ian]
- DC: Abstain.
- [Chris]
- like daves
- [Ian]
- Resolved: xmlProfiles. DC Abstains.
- Action IJ: Add to issues list
xmlProfiles-NNN. TB suggests title "When, whither and how to profile
W3C specifications in the XML Family"
- Action DO: Talk to XMLP WG about this new
issue.
Action NW: Talk to XML Core WG about this
new issue.
See messages from Robin
Berjon, Paul
Cotton (member only), Don
Brutzman (member only)
[Ian]
- For accepting: DO, DC.
Objections: TB
Abstain: NW, RF.
- RF: I abstain, mostly because I wouldn't call it XML....
- TB: Exactly, if it's binary, it's not XML.
- [Chris]
- its not the XML serialisation format, true
- [Ian]
- SW Proposed: Adopt binaryXML-NNN as an issue.
- Objections: TB
- Abstain: NW, RF, SW, PC
- [Chris]
- proposed - binaryXMLInfoset
- [Ian]
- PC: My rationale - I'm not sure what the community is asking for.
- CL: Discussion started before I could send crisp problem
statement.
- [timmit]
- I would like to be on the record as to why I would have supported
this
- [Ian]
- Supports binaryXML-NNN: DO, TBL, DC, CL
- [timmit]
- I would like to take up this issue because it has been raised by so
many parties too often, and no statment one way or the other exists
about it. The community deserves such a thing.
- [Ian]
- Action CL: Write up problem statement
about binary XML; send to www-tag.
- TBL: Here's why I think we should take it up - it's been raised by a
lot of people (e.g., Web3D, who are users). The XML community has ruled
it out of scope. If the TAG's conclusion is that it's better to do Y
than binary XML, then we should say so clearly. If the answer is so
obvious, we should state it clearly. If it's not, then we should
unearth it and deal with it.
- [TBray]
- considering changing my vote
- [Ian]
- DO: Also an issue in the Web Services community.: I think the TAG
could help out in this area.
- CL: For SVG we said "use gzip" but the mobile folks said that wasn't
good enough; they have to store strings with whitespace preserved. They
end up having 2 copies of the data.
- [timmit]
- (because the DOM allows access t the original strings)
- [Ian]
- TB: I am profoundly against the notion of binary XML in general.
However, having listened here, it's apparent that it's an issue that
won't go away.: If it's a bad idea, we should say why and tell people
how to solve problems in the real world.
- SW Proposed: binaryXML-NNN as a new issue.
- Objections: None.
- Abstain: RF, NW, PC
- Support: DC, CL, TB, DO, TBL, SW
Resolved: Accept binaryXML-NNN as a new
issue.
Action IJ: Add binaryXML-NNN to issues
list.
See message from Ossi
Nykänen.
[Ian]
- DO: I'm interested in the issue of versioning resources.: E.g.,
namespaces and versioning.
- TB: Notion of encoding metadata in a URI is broken. Versioning has
application-specific semantics.
- [timmit]
- Now RDF for metada is a good idea...
- [Chris]
- memories of VMS filenames with ;version in the filename
- [Ian]
- CL: If we universally thing this is a bad thing to do, we should say
so loudly.
- SW Proposed: Accept medataInURI-NNN?
- IJ: Could be short if universal response is "no".
Resolved: Accept issue matadataInURI-NNN
with note that TAG thinks the answer is "no" and will explain what to
do instead.
- Status of URIEquivalence-15, IRIEverywhere-27. Relation to
Character Model of the Web (chapter 4)? See text from TimBL on URI
canonicalization and email
from Martin in particular. See more comments
from Martin.
- Action MD 2002/11/18: Write up text about IRIEverywhere-27 for spec
writers to include in their spec.
- Action CL 2002/11/18: Write up finding for IRIEverywhere-27 (from
TB and TBL, a/b/c), to include MD's text.
- Action TB 2002/11/18: Write a finding for URIEquivalence-15 on IRI
relation to URI, different levels of equivalence. Done
- namespaceDocument-8
- Action NW 2002/11/18: Take a stab at indicating pros and cons for
the various RDDL/RDF/Xlink designs arising from TB's RDDL
challenge.
- rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
- The Schema WG is making progress; they will get back to us when
they're done. See XML
Schema thread on this topic.
- Action IJ: 2002/11/25: Update rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
to indicate waiting on WSDL WG. Done.
- uriMediaType-9:
- Action DC 2002/08/30: Write a draft Internet Draft based on this
finding (Deadline 2 Dec). This action probably
subsumes the action on TBL to get a reply from the IETF on the TAG
finding. Done,
TAG only.
Action DC: Point to this draft on
tag: "A
Registry of Assignments using Ubiquitous Technologies and Careful
Policies." This action was corrected per 9 Dec 2002
TAG teleconf. The action was to point TAG to document, not www-tag.
- Resolved: The TAG thanks Mark Baker
for his contributions to this draft!
- fragmentInXML-28
: Use of fragment identifiers in XML.
- xlinkScope-23
(5 minutes)
- Action SW 2002/11/18: Organize a special-interest teleconf for
discussion of this issue on linking. Pending; see email
from SW (TAG-only).
See also: findings.
- Findings in progress:
- deepLinking-25
- TB 2002/09/09: Revise "Deep
Linking" in light of 9 Sep
minutes. Status of finding?
- URI Comparison.
- Resolved: Link to TB's draft
finding from findings page.
Action IJ: Link to this from findings
page.
- 7 Nov
2002 Arch Doc
- Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3 based on resolutions of 18 Nov 2002
ftf meeting.
- Action DC 2002/11/04: Review "Meaning" to
see if there's any part of self-describing Web for the arch doc. Done.
- Complete review of TBs proposed
principles CP9, CP10 and CP11
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/12/09 22:02:54 $