W3CTAG Issues List for Last Call of 9 December 2003 Webarch

Individual view

Other views: issues | types | states | concerning | open actions


This list received comments from 6 groups and 28 individuals.

Comments from groups

  1. Device-Independence Working Group [3 issues ]
    1. diwg1 : Add scenario(s) with dynamically generated URI [open]
    2. diwg2 : Don't communicate language info in URIs (in example) [open]
    3. diwg3 : Suggest discussion of accessing different representations (transformed) of the same resource [open]
  2. Internationalization Working Group [21 issues ]
    1. i18nwg1 : Use "language" for natural language and "format" for format [open]
    2. i18nwg2 : Use "language" for natural language and "format" for format [open]
    3. i18nwg2b : Oaxaca hard to pronounce; propose Lima [open]
    4. i18nwg3 : Please show charset in Content-type. [open]
    5. i18nwg4 : Please refer to "issues" rather than "limitations" [open]
    6. i18nwg5 : Discussion of content-type header hint [open]
    7. i18nwg6 : Say something about character encoding/labeling errors. [open]
    8. i18nwg7 : Mention language negotiation [open]
    9. i18nwg8 : Sentences seem contradictory [closed]
    10. i18nwg9 : Case example unclear. [open]
    11. i18nwg10 : Don't recommend organizing information by language. [open]
    12. i18nwg11 : Mention IRIs? [open]
    13. i18nwg12 : Clarification on reference to "character" [open]
    14. i18nwg13 : URI ambiguity ambiguous [open]
    15. i18nwg14 : Show examples of good and bad ambiguity [open]
    16. i18nwg15 : Missing word [open]
    17. i18nwg16 : Good practice on URI opacity impossible to follow for humans. [closed]
    18. i18nwg17 : Add mention of IRIs [open]
    19. i18nwg18 : Mention that editing tools may be more strict than simple user agents [open]
    20. i18nwg19 : text/foo+xml considered useless? [closed]
    21. i18nwg20 : text/foo+xml considered useless? [open]
  3. Internet Architecture Board [13 issues ]
    1. schema1 : [1.2.3] "Silent recovery from error is harmful." [closed]
    2. falstrom1 : Editorial comments [open]
    3. falstrom2 : SOAP as a different thing than the other protocols [open]
    4. falstrom3 : Separate Media Types and Frag Id discussion [open]
    5. falstrom4 : Show only good practice re: Content-Location [open]
    6. falstrom5 : Add discussion about SSL/TLS? Is title correct? [open]
    7. falstrom6 : List overall diffs between binary and text formats [open]
    8. falstrom7 : Indicate when to use different link types [open]
    9. rosenberg1 : Introductory para on Web overly broad? [open]
    10. rosenberg2 : RFC2119 terms meant for protocols [open]
    11. rosenberg3 : Reuse appropriate URI schemes (and protocols) [closed]
    12. rosenberg4 : Use SIP for voice-over-ip, RTSP for streaming media [open]
    13. rosenberg5 : Proposed reference to IANA registry for namespaces and RFC 3688 [open]
  4. Quality Assurance Working Group [1 issue ]
    1. qawg1 : Seeking liaison on definitions of extensibility w.r.t. QA Guidelines [open]
  5. RDF Core Working Group [1 issue ]
    1. rdfcore1 : RDF Core general comments [open]
  6. XML Schema Working Group [21 issues ]
    1. schema1 : [1.2.3] "Silent recovery from error is harmful." [closed]
    2. schema2 : [Section 2] Unwise confluence of identification and retrievability [open]
    3. schema3 : [Section 2.3] Clarity required on nature of "resource" [open]
    4. schema4 : [3.3 Good practice: Fragment Identifier Consistency] [closed]
    5. schema5 : [3.3.1] Inconsistency with RFC2396bis about frag id meaning? [open]
    6. schema6 : [3.3.1] Do fragment identifiers work only with media-typed representations? [open]
    7. schema7 : [3.4.1] What is scope of metadata? [open]
    8. schema8 : [3.4.1] Authority and trust [closed]
    9. schema9 : [3.4.1] Are peer-to-peer interactions covered? [closed]
    10. schema10 : [3.5] Breadth of "safe" interactions [open]
    11. schema11 : [3.5.1] Best practice that content-location SHOULD be used? [open]
    12. schema12 : [3.6.1] [3.6.1] Good practice: Available representation. Too preferential to dereferencable URIs [open]
    13. schema13 : [4.2] Overly simplifies a complex problem [open]
    14. schema14 : [4.2.3] Must * rules in instance v. documentation [open]
    15. schema15 : [4.2.4] SOAP message cannot include JPEG [closed]
    16. schema16 : [4.5.1] Section on when to use XML formats underdeveloped [open]
    17. schema17 : [4.5.3] Statement about XMLNS and unique names false [open]
    18. schema18 : [4.5.3] Clarification on "type" in XML Schema [open]
    19. schema19 : [4.5.3] Element type/instance confusion [open]
    20. schema20 : [4.5.6] Flavors of ID not discussed [open]
    21. schema21 : General editorial comments [open]

Comments from individuals

  1. Aguilera, Augusto F (augusto.f.aguilera@boeing.com) [4 issues ]
    1. diwg1 : Add scenario(s) with dynamically generated URI [open]
    2. diwg2 : Don't communicate language info in URIs (in example) [open]
    3. diwg3 : Suggest discussion of accessing different representations (transformed) of the same resource [open]
    4. diwg4 : Suggest discussion of the limitations of Internet media types as the prime mechanism for selecting between different representations of a resource. [open]
  2. Al Gilman [2 issues ]
    1. gilman1 : 'legal requirement' as justification for 'particular presentation' misses 'leading Web to highest' mark [open]
    2. gilman2 : orthogonality is not the answer [open]
  3. Bijan Parsia (bparsia@isr.umd.edu) [22 issues ]
    1. parsia1 : LC Comments: 1.2.1, editorial [open]
    2. parsia2 : LC Comment 1.3.1, editorial [open]
    3. parsia3 : LC Comment, 1.2.3: Principle: Error recovery [open]
    4. parsia4 : LC Comments, 1.2.4, editorial [open]
    5. parsia5 : LC Comment, Section 2: Agreement on identifiers [closed]
    6. parsia6 : LC Comment, Section 2: Identification mechanism of the Web [closed]
    7. parsia7 : LC Comment, Section 2: On requirement to assign a URI to a resource [closed]
    8. parsia8 : LC Comment, Section 2: On resources existing before URIs [open]
    9. parsia9 : LC Comment, Section 2: On resources being able to have zero URIs [closed]
    10. parsia10 : LC Comment, Section 2: On URI assignment [closed]
    11. parsia11 : URI assignment v. use. Who are URI producers? [open]
    12. parsia12 : Ambiguous use of URIs v. URI Ambiguity? [closed]
    13. parsia13 : Use of term "URI Space" [open]
    14. parsia14 : Various types of ownership [open]
    15. parsia15 : Social implications of URI ownership. [open]
    16. parsia16 : No conformance section? Guidance on usage then? [open]
    17. parsia17 : Do you mean resource or representation? [open]
    18. parsia18 : Temporal URL ambiguity useful for Web robustness? [open]
    19. parsia19 : Ok to infer properties of retrieved representations? [open]
    20. parsia20 : Drop definition of "on the Web" [closed]
    21. parsia21 : Drop sentence on successful communication [closed]
    22. parsia22 : What does "in general" mean? Would the case be different "in specific"? [open]
  4. C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (cmsmcq@acm.org) [14 issues ]
    1. msm1 : editorial comments on Web Architecture document [open]
    2. msm2 : WD-webarch-20031209, 1.1.3: Self-descriptive markup considered improbable [open]
    3. msm3 : WD-webarch-20031209, 1.2.1 para 1: Assigning identifiers without knowing about representations [closed]
    4. msm4 : WD-webarch-20031209, 1.2.1, final bulleted list, final item.: Authoritative metadata and the principle of decentralization [open]
    5. msm5 : WD-webarch-20031209, 1.2.2 para 5: Extensibility is a not a property of languages in isolation [open]
    6. msm6 : WD-webarch-20031209, 1.2.2 para 5: Ignoring the unknown as a default action [open]
    7. msm7 : WD-webarch-20031209, 1.2.2 para 6: Ignoring elements and ignoring tags [open]
    8. msm8 : WD-webarch-20031209, Section 2, introductory paragraphs: The term 'resource' needs to be defined [open]
    9. msm9 : WD-webarch-20031209, Section 2 para 3: The vastness of URI space [closed]
    10. msm10 : WD-webarch-20031209, Section 2: Assigning URIs to resources others will expect to refer to [closed]
    11. msm11 : WD-webarch-20031209, Section 2.2, bulleted list, first item: Delegation of authority in hierarchical URIs [closed]
    12. msm12 : WD-webarch-20031209, Section 3.3.1, para 1: Are there constraints on the interpretation of fragment identifiers? [open]
    13. msm13 : WD-webarch-20031209, Section 3.3.2, para 3: Consistency of fragment identifiers [open]
    14. msm14 : WD-webarch-20031209, Section 4.2.2, Story: Allowing extra attributes does change the conformance of existing data [open]
  5. David Booth (dbooth@w3.org) [3 issues ]
    1. booth1 : Definition of "Web Agent" [open]
    2. booth2 : What rights does "URI ownership" confer? [closed]
    3. booth3 : 4.5.4: NS document as definitive source of info on namespace [closed]
  6. David M. Karr (dmkarr@earthlink.net) [1 issue ]
    1. karr1 : What does "authority component" mean? [open]
  7. Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org) [7 issues ]
    1. dhm1 : 1.1.3. Principles, constraints and good practices [open]
    2. dhm2 : "Silent recovery from error is harmful" [open]
    3. dhm3 : "Language extension" definition [open]
    4. dhm4 : 1.2.4 Protocol based interoperability [open]
    5. dhm5 : 4.1 Prevalence of Unicode [open]
    6. dhm6 : Use of "server" in "...authoritative server metadata..." [open]
    7. dhm7 : Webarch conformance model, subjects of GPNs [open]
  8. DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) (bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com) [1 issue ]
    1. ducharme1 : Editorial comments [open]
  9. Elliotte Rusty Harold (elharo@metalab.unc.edu) [1 issue ]
    1. harold1 : Title of URI uniqueness constraint [open]
  10. Frank Manola (fmanola@acm.org) [32 issues ]
    1. manola1 : Use of "agent" as people+software is flaky throughout document. [open]
    2. manola2 : Clarify nature of resource in example [open]
    3. manola3 : Minor editorial comments [open]
    4. manola4 : Sentence about refs ends abruptly [open]
    5. manola5 : Sentence on understanding REST model unclear [open]
    6. manola6 : User agent any kind of agent or just software? What does "on behalf of" include? [open]
    7. manola7 : "Agent" or "user agent" meant? [open]
    8. manola8 : Add "(names for things)" after "identifiers"? [open]
    9. manola9 : Why use "third party"? Who are other two? [open]
    10. manola10 : Who are "designers"? Any diff between URI owner/producer? Relationship to resource owner? [open]
    11. manola11 : Proposed improvement to GPN on URI assignment [open]
    12. manola12 : URI producers or owners? Relationship to opacity principle? Evidence of confusion about "agent" including "people"? [open]
    13. manola13 : Can agents assign URIs? Or should this be "use"? [open]
    14. manola14 : Clarify relationship between resource / URI ownership [open]
    15. manola15 : Does example *also* illustrate ambiguous URI usage? [open]
    16. manola16 : Paragraph on other uses of URIs is confusing [open]
    17. manola17 : "Agent" that includes "people" source of confusion [closed]
    18. manola18 : Update references to RDF, OWL specs [open]
    19. manola19 : Please provide qualifying context about the nature of the Web [open]
    20. manola20 : Have text after a story answer the question in the story. [open]
    21. manola21 : Owner of resource v. owner of URI [open]
    22. manola22 : "Agent" or "user agent" meant? [open]
    23. manola23 : Can software agents incur obligations? ("agent" or "user agent") [open]
    24. manola24 : What meaning(s) of "order" is meant? [open]
    25. manola25 : Agents "do not" or "should not" incur obligations? [open]
    26. manola26 : What does last sentence of story have to do with story? [open]
    27. manola27 : Provide examples of mistaken attempts to restrict URI usage [open]
    28. manola28 : Another case of "agent includes people?" doubt [open]
    29. manola29 : What are "language instances"? [open]
    30. manola30 : Difference between "setting expectations" and "specifying"? [open]
    31. manola31 : Questions about RDF, text, XML mixing [open]
    32. manola32 : Reword to avoid rhetorical question [open]
  11. Graham Klyne (gk@ninebynine.org) [29 issues ]
    1. klyne1 : Proposed to drop para on view source or clarify role in webarch [open]
    2. klyne2 : Change "other operations" to "refer to in another way" [open]
    3. klyne3 : Proposal to improve text about "network effect" [open]
    4. klyne4 : Proposed rewrite of overlapping paras [open]
    5. klyne5 : Proposed to use "global across the Web" rather than "global" [open]
    6. klyne6 : Clarification about point on agents detecting equivalence relationships [open]
    7. klyne7 : Use other schema than mailto as example [open]
    8. klyne8 : Unclear point about ambiguity in natural language; is the point about machine processing? [open]
    9. klyne9 : Add stronger language on not permitting unregistered URI schemes. [open]
    10. klyne10 : Add cross-ref to section on orthogonality [open]
    11. klyne11 : Change "will result" to "will necessarily result" [open]
    12. klyne12 : Proposal to drop paragraph on inconsistent frag ids [closed]
    13. klyne12b : Drop "by design" or replace with "by intent" [open]
    14. klyne13 : Text on communication between two parties misses mark about global names [open]
    15. klyne14 : Managers of resource, not Oaxaca [open]
    16. klyne15 : Lack of separation between owner of a resource and authority for a part of URI space used to identify a resource? [open]
    17. klyne15b : Propose "rationally" instead of "predictably" [open]
    18. klyne16 : Proposed improved example about using content negotiation [open]
    19. klyne17 : Worth pointing out value of RDF descriptions depends on URI persistence? [open]
    20. klyne18 : Use one of "data format", "format". And "language"? [open]
    21. klyne19 : Unclear statement about mixing RDF vocabularies [open]
    22. klyne20 : Say something about relationship between Hypertext Web and Semantic Web? [closed]
    23. klyne21 : Add statement about scalability concerns [open]
    24. klyne22 : Clarify what is meant by context having influence on use of hyperlinks [open]
    25. klyne23 : Clarify section (see TBL text on identifier v. reference?) [open]
    26. klyne24 : Is Web apart from Internet? [open]
    27. klyne25 : Add reference to RFC3117, section 5.1? [open]
    28. klyne26 : Transcoding allowing by some or all intermediaries? [open]
    29. klyne27 : Clarify para on "text/" and US-ASCII encoding. How does it relate to following GPN? [open]
  12. Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) (T.Hammond@elsevier.com) [2 issues ]
    1. hammond1 : Distinguish normative/informative references? [open]
    2. hammond2 : Editorial comments [open]
  13. Jacek Kopecky (jacek.kopecky@systinet.com) [6 issues ]
    1. kopecky1 : Proposed to drop stories [open]
    2. kopecky2 : 3.1 Reference or Identify? [open]
    3. kopecky3 : 4 application/xml [open]
    4. kopecky4 : 4.5.3 use of "understand" [open]
    5. kopecky5 : 4.5.5 More info on qnames, fragids, ns docs [closed]
    6. kopecky6 : 4.5.6 What's the conclusion? [closed]
  14. Ken Laskey [2 issues ]
    1. laskey1 : Editorial comments on WebArch [open]
    2. laskey2 : What determines URI uniqueness? [open]
  15. Kendall Clark (kendall@monkeyfist.com) [13 issues ]
    1. clark1a : Fragment Identifier Semantics [open]
    2. clark1b : Conflicting secondary resources [open]
    3. clark2 : What kinds of ambiguity are there? [open]
    4. clark3 : Willy-Nilly Resource Change [open]
    5. clark4a : Hypertext Good Practice Redundancies [open]
    6. clark4b : "Expected UI Paradigm"? [open]
    7. clark5 : Silent Error Recovery Always Harmful? [open]
    8. clark6 : Separating Presentation From Content [open]
    9. clark7 : More Ambiguity [open]
    10. clark8 : Section 3.4.'s Unmotivated Paragraph [open]
    11. clark9 : "Safe" and "Unsafe" Interactions [open]
    12. clark11 : The "great power" of URIs and their "vastness of choice" [open]
    13. clark12 : Needless Propagation of URIs? [open]
  16. Mark Baker (distobj@acm.org) [4 issues ]
    1. baker1 : Independence between identifier and resource, or representations? [closed]
    2. baker2 : More info on non-browser Web [closed]
    3. baker3 : Editorial comments [open]
    4. baker4 : 4.5.2: Preference for RDF linking over XLink linking [open]
  17. Mark Nottingham (mnot@mnot.net) [2 issues ]
    1. nottingham1 : Second bullet doesn't make sense. [open]
    2. nottingham2 : Include reference to IANA Registry of HTTP headers? [open]
  18. Martin Duerst (duerst@w3.org) [2 issues ]
    1. duerst1 : Principle and constraint titles [open]
    2. duerst2 : WebArch and RFC2396bis: URIs and Fragids [open]
  19. Micah Dubinko (MDubinko@cardiff.com) [1 issue ]
    1. dubinko1 : Document different interpretations around httpRange-14 [open]
  20. Micah Dubinko (MDubinko@verity.com) [1 issue ]
    1. dubinko2 : Architecture v. Building Codes [open]
  21. Patrick Stickler (patrick.stickler@nokia.com) [10 issues ]
    1. stickler1 : Editorial suggestions [open]
    2. stickler2 : Sections 4.5.4, 5: Namespace document [open]
    3. stickler3 : Section 5: Dereference a URI [open]
    4. stickler4 : Section 3.6.1 Proposed removal of good practice note [open]
    5. stickler5 : Section 3.6, para 1: Fix "resource is unreliable" [open]
    6. stickler6 : Section 3.5.1: POST requests and URIs [open]
    7. stickler7 : Section 3.4, para 2: URI ownership questions [open]
    8. stickler8 : Section 3.3.1, last para, last sentence: Nature of secondary resource not known through URI [open]
    9. stickler9 : Good practice note on URIs without fragids? [closed]
    10. stickler10 : Section 5: Secondary resource [open]
  22. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com) [1 issue ]
    1. pps1 : Ownership and authority [open]
  23. Sandro Hawke (sandro@w3.org) [9 issues ]
    1. hawke1 : Proposed good practice note on looking inside protocol interactions [closed]
    2. hawke2 : Section 2: Full agreement not required for communication [closed]
    3. hawke3 : 2.2 UUID/MD5 not registered URI schemes [open]
    4. hawke4 : 2.3: Propose "URI overloading" not "URI ambiguity" [open]
    5. hawke6 : 2.6. Fragment Identifiers: "Stem resource" [open]
    6. hawke7 : 2.7.2. Assertion that Two URIs Identify the Same Resource [closed]
    7. hawke8 : 3.2. Messages and Representations: Use of "state" [open]
    8. hawke9 : 3.2. Messages and Representations [open]
    9. hawke10 : 3.5. Safe Interactions [open]
  24. Sergio Rodriguez (srodriguez@bdgsa.net) [1 issue ]
    1. rodriguez1 : Dataweb?: XDI and XRI. [open]
  25. Susan Lesch [1 issue ]
    1. lesch1 : Editorial comments [open]
  26. Tim Goodwin (tjg@star.le.ac.uk) [1 issue ]
    1. goodwin1 : Editorial suggestions [open]
  27. Tom Worthington (tomw99@fastmail.fm) [1 issue ]
    1. worthington1 : Simplify the text and separate the W3C politics [open]
  28. Yves Lafon (ylafon@w3.org) [1 issue ]
    1. lafon1 : Implications of HTTP URI implying GET as default method [open]

Maintained by W3C Technical Architecture Group.

Last update: $Date: 2004/08/10 13:11:54 $


This page was generated as part of the Extensible Issue Tracking System (ExIT)