W3C | TAG | Previous: 7 Oct teleconference | Next: 28 Oct

Minutes of 21 October 2002 TAG teleconference

Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details · issues list · www-tag archive

1. Administrative

1. Roll call: SW (Chair), DC, TB, DO, PC, NW, IJ (Scribe). Regrets: TBL, CL. Absent: RF.
2. Accepted 7 Oct teleconference minutes
3. Accepted this agenda
4. Next meeting: 28 October. Possible regrets from PC.

1.2 Completed actions

1. Action RF 2002/09/25: On the topic of revising RFC2396, indicate to the TAG what the relevant IETF fora are for input. Done: uri@w3org is the forum. RF will send information there.
2. Action DC 2002/08/12: Ask www-tag for volunteers to work with TAG (and possibly IETF) on HTTP URI stuff; CRISP. [This action supersedes the previous action: Ask IESG when IETF decided not to use HTTP URIs to name protocols.] Sent. Mark Baker and DC have a draft.

1.3 AC meeting planning

1. TAG presentation at AC meeting.
   1. Action IJ: Request different time slot to improve proximity to TAG ftf meeting.
   2. TAG expects to discuss the following topics (presenter indicated):
      1. XLink: SW
      2. Arch Document: TB (or DC if TB cannot). As part of this report, talk about IETF liaison regarding URIs.
      3. GET7/SOAP story: DO.
   3. Action SW, TB, DO: Send slides for AC discussion to TAG for review by 11 November. Review to take place primarily by email.
   4. TAG does not expect to give an oral update; will be done in the form of a written summary. Action IJ: Draft written summary of TAG activity in last six months for AC. The report will include an assessment of TAG's work, process, as discussed at TAG ftf meeting. The report will also include observations on process issues raised by AC on original TAG charter. Action IJ and PC: Include information from IJ's summary of process issues (TAG-only) from AB regarding TAG charter. Also, clarify meaning of "short-term resolutions" in charter.

2. Technical

• 2.1 Findings, arch doc
• 2.2 xlinkScope-23
• 2.3 Other technical issues and actions
• 2.4 New issues
• 2.5 Postponed

2.1 Findings, Architecture Document

See also: findings.

1. Findings in progress:
   1. deepLinking-25
      1. TB 2002/09/09: Revise "Deep Linking" in light of 9 Sep minutes. Status of finding?

         TB: Pending; I still have to incorporate comments from people.

2. Findings versioning
   1. SW 2002/09/09: Discuss with IJ versioning of findings. Pending. SW and IJ have discussed latest accepted v. latest draft; need to draft written proposal for TAG.
3. Architecture document
   1. Finish discussion of feedback on arch document. Action IJ: Summarize remaining review comments:
      1. Summary of comments
      2. Comments from Graham Klyne
      3. Comments from Daniel Dardailler

      Action IJ 2002/10/17 (from Chair): Summarize these comments for the TAG.

   2. Action RF 2002/09/25: Propose a rewrite of a principle (rationale -> principle -> constraint) to see whether the TAG prefers this approach. It was suggested that the example be about HTTP/REST, as part of section 4.
   3. Action TBL 2002/09/25: Propose text on information hiding. (From 24-25 Sep TAG ftf: "The principle of information-hiding is contrary to global identifiers....Shall we put in the document something about information hiding/independent design of orthogonal specs? You should should not be able to write an xpath to peek into http headers....")
   4. Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3, incorporating CL's existing text and TB's structural proposal (see minutes of 25 Sep ftf meeting on formats).
   5. Action NW 2002/09/25: Write some text for a section on namespaces (docs at namespace URIs, use of RDDL-like thing).

2.2 xlinkScope-23

See xlinkScope-23.

[Ian]

TB, PC: Please wait until we comment on this before linking to it.

DC: HTML WG has no obligation to participate on www-tag. We can certainly invite them to participate as a WG. Our original email went to the HTML WG; we are awaiting a reply from the HTML WG. SW can talk to the Chair and ask for a reply; or continued discussion on www-tag.

PC: I think we need to ask whether we still hold the same opinion having seen the input. I expect this to be back on our agenda. I don't disagree with DC - getting more consolidated input on different perspectives would be useful.

TB: I'm not sure what the appropriate path forward is, process-wise.

[TAG notes that relevant threads have slowed down here and on xml-dev.]

[DanCon]

thanks, Tim Bray, for reading all this email.

[Ian]

TB: I think most of the substantive talk on xml-dev was also sent to www-tag (prompted by TB).

PC: The summary should include some of what we discussed at the FTF meeting. Otherwise, the summary is disconnected.

DC: E.g., my reasons for using XLink are not in SW's summary.: PC's document ("why we decided what we did, who (dis)agrees and why") is interesting.

TB: I did this:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Oct/0075.html

TB: I think that some of the rationale is in that email.

[DC notes that this is cited from SW's summary.]

PC: I think we can engage in more useful discussion and debate by demonstrating where agreement/differences are.

[DanCon]

My position at the ftf meeting was mostly: let's share technology where we can; one linking technology is likely better than 2, unless the 1 is 1000% worse than either of the 2.

[Ian]

DC: I agree that PC's document would be handy.

[Support for SW adding more on TAG rationale to summary.]

IJ: These are called "findings."

DC: An interesting place to start this summary is when this was raised in the TAG. It would have been an abuse of process to squash the HLink WD. I'd like this to go back to the genesis of the issue; reported journalistic style. This started because the Director observed a disconnect; this was not at the request of the WGs involved.

TB: SW tried to cite the arguments and to summarize them. That's tricky, but if done well, that's a service to the community. Perhaps we could revise the summary along these lines:

1. We were asked to consider this.
2. We said yes (reference).
3. People disagreed (references, reasons).
4. etc.

TB: Perhaps point/counter-point can be dropped, and follow along historical lines.

DC: I'm conflicted. This was a huge time-saver. I think the summary is interesting of the discussion (even if not connected to our decision). It would be a shame to lose what SW has done.

TB: The imposition of point/counter-point approach might grate some. But I would be satisfied with SW approach and more connection to our decision.

SW: I will gladly take input on mailing list for the next couple of days.

DC: If SW and any other TAG participant say ok to go public, ok by me.

[Support for DC's suggestion from TB and NW.]

Action SW 2002/10/21: Starting from email from SW to TAG, develop a summary of technical discussion and send to www-tag. Include more rationale for original TAG email to HTML WG.

2.3 Other technical issues and actions

1. namespaceDocument-8
   1. Action TB 2002/09/24: Revise the RDDL document to use RDF rather than XLink. Goal of publication as W3C Note.

      TB: This turns out to be harder than I thought. I am still working on this.

2. rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
   1. Completed Action DC 2002/09/24: Write to Schema WG to say that TAG is interested in progress on this issue. Copy Jonathan Borden and Brian McBride.

      DC: The Schema WG is making progress; they will get back to us when they're done. See XML Schema thread on this topic.

3. uriMediaType-9:
   • Action DC 2002/08/30: Write a draft Internet Draft based on this finding (Deadline 30 Sep). This action probably subsumes the action on TBL to get a reply from the IETF on the TAG finding.

     DC: There is an Internet draft on this, but I need to revise some of my language. My guess is that it will take me another month or so. I do think that this is the right direction. I have noted input from Larry Masinter.

     DO: I've been having discussions with Donald Eastlake; he plans to revise his draft.

2.4 New issues?

• Use of frags in SVG v. in XML
  • Action DC 2002/09/26: Describe this issue in more detail for the TAG
• Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc from Tim Bray.
  DC: TB's mail convinced me that we have an issue.
  NW: I'm also willing to support this as an issue.
  Action TB: Reformulate issue for next week's meeting; we will decide then whether to add to the issues list.

2.5 Postponed

1. contentPresentation-26
   1. Action CL 2002/09/24: Draft text on the principle of separation of content and presentation for the Arch Doc.
2. Status of URIEquivalence-15. 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.
   1. CL 2002/08/30: Ask Martin Duerst for suggestions for good practice regarding URI canonicalization issues, such as %7E v. &7e and suggested use of lower case. At 16 Sep meeting, CL reports pending; action to send URI to message to TAG.
   2. IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) from Jonathan Marsh. Is this part of this issue or a new issue?
3. Status of discussions with WSA WG about SOAP/WSDL/GET/Query strings?
   • DO 2002/06/24: Contact WSDL WG about this issue (bindings, query strings and schemas) to ensure that it's on their radar. See discussions from 9 Sep TAG teleconf.