W3C | TAG | Previous: 13 Jan teleconf | Next: 27 Jan 2003 teleconf
Agenda for 20 Jan 2003 TAG teleconference
Nearby: Teleconference details · issues list · www-tag archive
Note: The Chair does not expect the agenda to change
after close of business (Boston time) Thursday of this week.
1. Administrative (20min)
- Confirm Chair (SW) and Scribe (IJ).
- Accept 13 Jan minutes?
- Accept this agenda?
- Next meeting: 27 Jan?
1.1 Meeting planning
- Next TAG ftf: 6-7 Feb 2003 in Irvine, CA (USA)
- Draft agenda
- Breakout sessions for arch doc discussions. Who wishes
to do what? Preparations for the meeting?
2. Technical (70min)
2.1 Findings in progress, architecture document
See also: findings.
- Findings in progress:
- deepLinking-25
- Action TB 2002/09/09: Revise "Deep
Linking" in light of 9 Sep
minutes.
- URIEquivalence-15
- TB's "How to
Compare Uniform Resource Identifiers" draft finding.
- Completed Action DC: DC
review of this finding.
- 6 Dec 2002 Editor's Draft of
Arch Doc:
- Next TR page draft? IJ proposes after ftf meeting.
- Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3 based on resolutions of 18 Nov 2002 ftf
meeting.
- Complete review of TBs proposed
principles CP9, CP10 and CP11
2.2 Priority issues
- xlinkScope-23
- Summary of 16 Jan special teleconference (TAG-only).
- IRIEverywhere-27
- Action MD and CL 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.
- binaryXML-30
- Action CL 2002/12/02: Write up problem statement about binary XML;
send to www-tag.
- xmlProfiles-29
- See email from Chris on options
for ID
- See email from NW (TAG-only) on ID
attributes.
- See comments
from Paul Grosso to treat xml:id as separate spec.
- Completed action NW 2003/01/06: Write up a second draft of the TAG
position on XML subsetting based on original
proposal. (Done).
- namespaceDocument-8
- Action PC, TB 2003/01/13: Write up a Working Draft that
recommends a data format for namespace docs (not compulsory) and that
such a document should follow the Rec track process. The initial
content of the document should be taken from the RDDL challenge
proposals; they are isomorphic in tecnical content. Please include drawbacks in the draft.
- Please read NW
summary of the following proposals:
- RDDL
Proposal from Tim Bray.
- RDDL
Proposal from Chris Wilper
- RDDL Proposal from
TBL
- RDDL
Proposal from Jonathan Borden
- RDDL
Proposal from Micah Dubinko
- RDDL
Proposal from Sandro Hawke
- See also proposal from Garrett Wilson
- fragmentInXML-28
: Use of fragment identifiers in XML.
- Connection to content negotiation?
- Connection to opacity of URIs?
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2003/01/20 10:32:22 $