This is the list of general issues the TAG has considered
As of 28 Aug 2007 the TAG has transitioned its issues list and action item tracking to Tracker .
This list remains as a historical reference, though much of its content has been transferred to the TAG Tracker Page .
Tracker page URIs for TAG issues are of the form http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/<number> where <number> is the numeric value at the end of each issues' nick name. For example, the tracker page for httpRange-14 is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/14 .
See the TAG issue tracking policy (and tips for getting the TAG's attention). See also Dan Connolly suggested tactics for addressing new issues .
For more information about the TAG, refer to the TAG Home Page .
Color key: error warning note
| Id:Title | State | Type | Category | Open actions | Ack. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| w3cMediaType-1 : Should W3C WGs define their own media types? | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| customMediaType-2 : What commonality should there be among W3C media types? | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| nsMediaType-3 : Relationship between media types and namespaces? | subsumed [mixedNamespaceMeaning-13] | request | |||
| xformsReview-4 : Request to review XForms Last Call document | declined | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| uncefactLiaison-5 : Invitation to create liaison with UN/CEFACT ebTWG Architecture Group | declined | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 : Algorithm for creating a URI from a QName? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| whenToUseGet-7 : (1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in XForms (2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like method? GET plus a body?) | accepted | request | No response to reviewer | ||
| namespaceDocument-8 : What should a "namespace document" look like? | no decision (accepted) | request |
| ||
| uriMediaType-9 : Why does the Web use mime types and not URIs? | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| xmlSW-10 : Should next version of XML be XML 1.0 - DTDs + namespaces + xml:base + the infoset? | declined | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| soapRPCURI-11 : What is the appropriate relationship between SOAP RPC and the Web's reliance on URIs? | declined | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| xmlAsText-12 : Do proposed changes to XML 1.1 ignore Unicode constraints? | declined | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 : What is the meaning of a document composed of content in mixed namespaces? | subsumed [mixedUIXMLNamespace-33, xmlFunctions-34, RDFinXHTML-35] | request | |||
| httpRange-14 : What is the range of the HTTP dereference function? | agreed | request |
| No reply from reviewer | |
| URIEquivalence-15 : When are two URI variants considered equivalent? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| HTTPSubstrate-16 : Should HTTP be used as a substrate protocol? Does W3C agree with RFC 3205? | no decision (deferred) | request | |||
| charmodReview-17 : Request to review "Character Model for the Web" Last Call document | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| qnameAsId-18 : Is it ok to use Qnames as Identifiers? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| formattingProperties-19 : Reuse existing formatting properties/names, coordinate new ones | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| errorHandling-20 : What should specifications say about error handling? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| RFC3023Charset-21 : Do all "shoulds" of RFC 3023 section 7.1 apply? | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| augmentedInfoset-22 : Infoset augmentation outside of PSVI? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| xlinkScope-23 : What is the scope of using XLink? | agreed | request | No response to reviewer | ||
| contentTypeOverride-24 : Can a specification include rules for overriding HTTP content type parameters? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| deepLinking-25 : What to say in defense of principle that deep linking is not an illegal act? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| contentPresentation-26 : Separation of semantic and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is architecturally sound. | agreed | request | No response to reviewer | ||
| IRIEverywhere-27 : Should W3C specifications start promoting IRIs? | no decision (accepted) | request |
| ||
| fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML | agreed | request | No response to reviewer | ||
| xmlProfiles-29 : When, whither and how to profile W3C specifications in the XML Family | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| binaryXML-30 : Standardize a "binary XML" format? | no decision (deferred) | request | |||
| metadataInURI-31 : Should metadata (e.g., versioning information) be encoded in URIs? | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| xmlIDSemantics-32 : How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD? | agreed | request | No response to reviewer | ||
| mixedUIXMLNamespace-33 : Composability for user interface-oriented XML namespaces | no decision (deferred) | request | |||
| xmlFunctions-34 : XML Transformation and composability (e.g., XSLT, XInclude, Encryption) | no decision (accepted) | request |
| ||
| RDFinXHTML-35 : Syntax and semantics for embedding RDF in XHTML | no decision (deferred) | request |
| ||
| siteData-36 : Web site metadata improving on robots.txt, w3c/p3p and favicon etc. | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| abstractComponentRefs-37 : Definition of abstract components with namespace names and frag ids | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| putMediaType-38 : Relation of HTTP PUT to GET, and whether client headers to server are authoritative | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| rdfURIMeaning-39 : Meaning of URIs in RDF documents | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| URIGoodPractice-40 : What are good practices for URI construction? | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| XMLVersioning-41 : What are good practices for designing extensible XML languages and for handling versioning? | no decision (accepted) | request |
| ||
| ultimateQuestion-42 : What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything. | no decision (accepted) | request |
| ||
| DerivedResources-43 : How are secondary resources derived? | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| xmlChunk-44 : Chunk of XML - Canonicalization and equality | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| mediaTypeManagement-45 : What is the appropriate level of granularity of the media type mechanism? | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| xml11Names-46 : Impact of changes to XML 1.1 on other XML Specifications | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| endPointRefs-47 : WS-Addressing SOAP binding & app protocols | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| nameSpaceState-48 : Adding terms to a namespace | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| schemeProtocols-49 : Relationship of URI schemes to protocols and operations | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| URNsAndRegistries-50 : URNs for namespace names used in XML formats | no decision (accepted) | request |
| ||
| standardizedFieldValues-51 : Squatting on link relationship names, x-tokens, registries, and URI-based extensibility | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| passwordsInTheClear-52 : Sending passwords in the clear | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| genericResources-53 : Generic resources | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| TagSoupIntegration-54 : Tag soup integration | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| utf7Encoding-55 : Security issues with incorrect metadata | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| abbreviatedURIs-56 : Abbreviating URIs in Web Languages | no decision (accepted) | request |
|
What are the general guidelines or policies (if any) for W3C working groups in defining their own media types? Should they be defining them at all?
For example, should all these custom XML types being registered be required to use the RFC 3023 +xml convention? If so, should all the SHOULDs of section 7.1 be followed? etc.. The question isn't restricted to RFC 3023 issues though. There may be value to other common features between types.
See resolution for w3cMediaType-1 . See changes from Chris Lilley regarding RFC 3023 .
What is, or what should be, the relationship between a media type and an XML namespace?
Cf. issue mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 .
Broad request to review XForms Last Call document.
There are several architectural issues in UN/CEFACT and ebXML which should probably be solved by the W3C group. The needs are not specific to ebXML and several other "Registry" and XML vocabulary groups may have similar requirements.
TAG suggests that request be redirected to new Web Services Architecture Working Group
"It seems to me that the RDFCore and XMLSchema WGs (at the very least) ought to develop a common, reasonably acceptable convention as to the mapping between QNames and URIs. Perhaps this is an issue that the TAG ought to consider (because it is a really basic architectural issue)."
The use of Qnames as identifiers without providing a mapping to URIs is inconsistent with Web Architecture. See the TAG finding Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in Content .
Accepts the situation
Propose TAG response to XML Schema desideratum ( RQ-23 )
Henry Thompson is aware of this issue.
Revise Qname finding to say (1) if you use qnames, provide a mapping to URIs and (2) don't define an attribute that can take either a URI or a Qname since they are not syntactically distinguishable.
Proposed revision of finding. However, as discussed at 5 Jan 2004 teleconf , NW expects to produce a new revision based on other input.
Subsumed by action for revision related to qnameAsId-18 .
Point WSDL WG to resolution of issue 6.
Propose some extra text for section 4.5 that hypertext agents often follow an IGNORE rule and this often results in incompatible behavior. Ignore applied to fragid interpretation.
This was too late for Last Call Arch Doc.
See comments from Paul Prescod to Forms WG "I know you've recently been asked about PUT. During that discussion it arose that HTTP GET is deprecated in the specification. Does this mean that XForms would be incompatible with an application like Google that uses a form to generate a GET URL?"
URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET .
Acknowledged by DanC by virtue of WG agreement
Reopening the issue as an umbrella (together with issue endPointRefs-47 ) for discussing submission WS-Transfer .
Provide TAG with pointers into WS specs where issue of safe operations is manifest.
See WSDL WG's issue 117 .
Ask WSDL WG to look at finding; ask them if marking operations as safe in WSDL is one of their requirements.
Request to WS Desc WG Chair to ensure that this on their WG's issues list.
See WSDL WG's issue 117 and decision from WSDL WG
Thank the WSDL for what they've done so far, ask them to explain a bit about what can go wrong, encourage them to put it in the test suite
See email to WSDL WG
Completed
Noah and Dave to write a position paper outline for the TAG by the 18th of Dec. 2006.
Completed
Stuart to respond to Jacek and Jonathan wrt whenToUseGet-7 and WSDL.
The section on namespaces in Web Architecture from 50,000 feet states: "The namespace document (with the namespace URI) is a place for the language publisher to keep definitive material about a namespace. Schema languages are ideal for this." Tim Bray disagrees.
Prepare finding to answer this issue, pointing to the RDDL Note. See comments from Paul regarding TB theses. Per 23 Feb 2004 teleconf , modified into an action to produce a bulleted list of points.
Add "Hello World" example to next draft of RDDL Spec (i.e., to edited version of RDDL draft 4 ). See also Proposal for RDDL to RDF mapping from DC
Produce schemaware for RDDL spec once TAG has consensus on the syntax.
Continue working on draft and to get statement from Jonathan re: persistence at rddl.org
Add pointer to previous syntax in the Note
follow up on noah's message on ns name. Reconfirmed on 10 Jan 2006 .
draft a section on using XHTML 1.x (not RDDL) with GRDDL and relax-ng
DanC has sent a note "a usps namespace document using plain XHTML and GRDDL".
track progress of #int bug 1974 in the XML Schema namespace document in the XML Schema WG. Confirmed 5 Oct 2006 .
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-23
ask for "default nature" to be changed to "implicit nature" in RDDL spec
The RDDL spec was fixed .
propose to Jonathan Borden that he changes to using a file of Natures. Confirmed on 14 Nov 2006 .
Provide a set of test cases of ways in which RDDL is actually used.
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-21
Start an ontology including docns/documentElementNamespace.
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-22
Media types are not first-class objects on the Web, or are they?
TAG Finding: Mapping between URIs and Internet Media Types . The TAG has not resolved this issue since the loop has not been closed with the IETF. See Internet Draft A Registry of Assignments using Ubiquitous Technologies and Careful Policies by D. Connolly and M. Baker.
Propose CL's three changes to registration process to Ned Freed.
Should next version of XML be XML 1.0 - DTDs + namespaces + xml:base + the infoset?
What is the appropriate relationship between SOAP RPC and the Web's reliance on URIs?
Do proposed changes to XML 1.1 ignore Unicode constraints?
XML Core WG is aware of these issues. Refer to draft response from David Orchard
This was raised in the light of lack of consensus result from the workshop, and specifically prompted by a question, occurring as XEncryption made its way to Candidate Recommendation status in W3C, about the relationship of XEncryption to other specs, and TAG discussion of XSLT "templates" as an apparent corner case in XML processing.
Second issue: namespace-based dispatching. From TAG draft finding on issues *-{1,2,3}, the following draft text was removed for discussion as part of this issue:
When processing XML documents, it is appropriate for Web applications to dispatch elements to modules for processing based on the namespace of the element type.
Correct dispatching and processing requires context - in general it is not reasonable nor safe to do namespace-based processing without knowledge of the namespace of ancestor elements. Because of this, the namespace of the root element of an XML document has special status and serves naturally as a basis for top-level software dispatching in the case where the dispatch information is not externally supplied.
It is acknowledged that there are exceptions to this rule, for example XSLT documents whose root element's namespace depends on the desired output from application of the XSLT.
It should be noticed that in the case of certain sort of element including some in XSLT, XInclude, XEncryption namespaces, that a system conforming to the specification will regcognize them at any point in a document and elaborate them in place, typically producing more XML which replaces the element instance in the tree.
Split into three smaller issues: mixedUIXMLNamespace-33 , xmlFunctions-34 , and RDFinXHTML-35
TBL's argument the HTTP URIs (without "#") should be understood as referring to documents, not cars.
The TAG provides advice to the community that they may mint "http" URIs for any resource provided that they follow this simple rule for the sake of removing ambiguity:
Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document.s
Proposed text, resolution, new issue
Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document.s
Proposed text, resolution, new issue
Rhys to consider and draft a finding around the issues raised by httpRange-14.
Email announcing first public draft from Rhys
Rhys to revise Dereferencing HTTP URIs finding in response to F2F discussion. Continued: 9 July 2007
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-6 and to issue HttpRedirections-57
Stuart to review "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
Review posted to www-tag .
From Joseph Reagle:
Stephen [Farrell] has asked an interesting question below that I expect will be important to any activity that uses URIs as identifiers in the context of a semantic/security application: when are two URI variants considered identical?
Draft finding: URI Comparison . This has been integrated into RFC2396bis ( CVS repository ); the TAG expects to follow the progress of RFC2396bis. Commentary and resolution should happen through the IETF process.
Track RFC2396bis where Tim Bray text has been integrated. Comment within the IETF process.
SW believes RFC2396 largely incorporates the necessary text; see his email for details.
TB's text successfully incorporated.
Review RFC2396 bis (current Editor's Draft) in preparation for IETF/W3C coordination meeting 6 Feb.
TBL reported that he sent comments to RF about the RFC and Roy acknowledged having received them.
From Mark Nottingham:
The IETF has recently published RFC3205, "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate" [1] as Best Current Practice.
This document makes a number of recommendations regarding the use of HTTP. Some are reasonable, such as guidelines about what kinds of scenarios the HTTP is most useful in, how to use media types and methods to extend the HTTP, etc. However, it also bases a number of recommendations on a fuzzily-defined concept of 'traditional use' of the HTTP. These directives may seriously limit the future potential of the Web, effectively freezing its capability to common practice in 2001."
The TAG decided to defer this issue pending any attempt to enforce RFC3205.
Write a response to IESG asking whether the Web services example in the SOAP 1.2 primer is intended to be excluded from RFC 3205
Closed as issue is deferred.
Write descriptive paragraph explaining this issue's state.
Roy reported on his discussion at the IETF meeting.
Request to review "Character Model for the Web" Last Call document
Comments sent by Norm to the I18N comments list and reminder from Dan Connolly . See also Comments from CL . See other TAG resolutions regarding this issue in 3 Jun minutes .
Follow up with I18N folks on status of TAG's charmod comments. See Mail from DC to I18N WG in light of new Charmod draft
SW has discussed this with new I18N chair. SW invited I18N reps to participate in a TAG teleconf, probably in Dec 2003. At 15 March 2004 teleconf , SW took an additional action to request a two-week extension for TAG comments.
SW's action, by virtue of the TAG agreeing to proposals from CL and DC, seems to have been completed.
Review charmod language re: reference to Unicode std.
Review from Tim Bray
Pull out items from I18N WG response to TAG issues for meeting discussion.
Summary of position on I18N WG replies.
CL to respond to I18N WG per his proposal.
Respond to I18N WG per previous proposal.
This action has been completed and replaced by an action assigned 22 March.
Look at I18N issue C127 : "Say that the IRI form is used in the document instance and the hexified URI form when it goes over the wire"
Suggest wording to I18N WG regarding C068.
Write up TAG's complete LC comments and send them to the I18N WG (cc'ing www-tag).
Is it ok to use Qnames as Identifiers?
Finding: Using QNames as Identifiers
Ask the Schema WG to review the draft finding.
Ask the Schema WG to review the draft finding.
See revised finding Using QNames as Identifiers .
Revise 6 Jan 2004 draft finding for review and possible approval by TAG.
See revised finding Using QNames as Identifiers .
Review 14 Jan draft of Qname Finding .
Dropped and finding accepted.
Review 14 Jan draft of Qname Finding .
Dropped and finding accepted.
Review 14 Jan draft of Qname Finding .
TBL's comments taken into account and finding accepted.
Reuse existing formatting properties/names, coordinate new ones
Finding: Consistency of Formatting Property Names, Values, and Semantics
What should specifications say about error handling?
The TAG believes it has addressed a majority of points about the issue in the 11 Nov 2003 draft, with pointers to relevant sections 3.4 and 1.2.2, as well as the section on versioning and extensibility. The TAG declines at this time to handle the following questions raised by the reviewer: (1) Extension of XML. Answer: Application dependent. (2) Handling of deprecated elements.
Write text to reviewer about the TAG's decision on this issue.
Email sent to reviewer.
Do all "shoulds" of RFC 3023 section 7.1 apply?