This is the list of general issues the TAG has considered
This list remains as a historical reference, though much
of its content has been transferred to the TAG
Tracker page URIs for TAG issues are of the form
See the
For more information about the TAG, refer to the
$Revision: 1.267 $
Before LC
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?
Message from Joseph Reagle about
Comments from Mark Baker on
18 Dec 2004:
25 Feb 2004:
Before LC
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
Before LC
What is, or what should be, the relationship between a media type and an XML namespace?
See
Cf. issue
Before LC
Broad request to review XForms Last Call document.
In general, the TAG does not expect to review documents on the W3C Recommendation Track, unless specific issues are brought to their attention.
Before LC
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
Before LC
"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
Accepts the situation
Propose TAG response to XML Schema
desideratum (
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
Subsumed by action for revision
related to
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.
Before LC
See
See
Acknowledged by DanC by virtue of WG agreement
Reopening the issue as an umbrella (together
with issue
Provide TAG with pointers into WS specs where issue of safe operations is manifest.
See WSDL WG's
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
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
See
See
See
See
Emails (
Namespace URIs should be
dereferencable (to find useful
explanatory material) (
Refer to draft TAG
Prepare finding to answer this
issue, pointing to the RDDL Note.
See
Add "Hello World" example to next
draft of RDDL Spec (i.e., to edited
version of
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
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
Tracking transferred to tracker
ask for "default nature" to be changed to "implicit nature" in RDDL spec
The RDDL spec
propose to Jonathan Borden that he
changes to using a file of Natures.
Confirmed on
Provide a set of test cases of ways in which RDDL is actually used.
Tracking transferred to tracker
Start an ontology including docns/documentElementNamespace.
Tracking transferred to tracker
Media types are not first-class objects on the Web, or are they?
IANA appears to have responded to
the spirit of this draft (see
Propose CL's three changes to registration process to Ned Freed.
See
Before LC
Should next version of XML be XML 1.0 - DTDs + namespaces + xml:base + the infoset?
Forward this to the XML Coordination Group
Before LC
What is the appropriate relationship between SOAP RPC and the Web's reliance on URIs?
Forward to XML Protocol WG
Before LC
Do proposed changes to XML 1.1 ignore Unicode constraints?
XML Core WG is aware of these issues. Refer
to
Before LC
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:
TBL's argument the HTTP URIs (without "#") should be understood as referring to documents, not cars.
Namespace v. Namespace Document is
an example of this issue as
evidenced by
See discussion of
See discussion of phrase "on
the Web" at
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:
If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a 2xx response, then the resource identified by that URI is an information resource;
If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a 303 (See Other) response, then the resource identified by that URI could be any resource;
If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a 4xx (error) response, then the nature of the resource is unknown.
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:
Tracking transferred to tracker
Stuart to review
Review posted to
Norm to review
Before LC
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?
See text from TimBL on
Assigned initially to Dan Connolly
(at
Email from Larry Masinter proposing
Email from TBL about
Draft finding:
URI Comparison (link not maintained but see RFC3986.)
. This has been integrated into RFC2396bis (
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."
See
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
Follow up with I18N folks on status
of TAG's charmod comments. See
SW has discussed this with new I18N
chair. SW invited I18N reps to
participate in a TAG teleconf,
probably in Dec 2003. At
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
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).
Before LC
Is it ok to use Qnames as Identifiers?
Finding:
Ask the Schema WG to review the draft finding.
Ask the Schema WG to review the draft finding.
See revised finding
Revise
See revised finding
Review 14 Jan draft of
Dropped and finding accepted.
Review 14 Jan draft of
Dropped and finding accepted.
Review 14 Jan draft of
TBL's comments taken into account and finding accepted.
Before LC
Reuse existing formatting properties/names, coordinate new ones
CSS2
XSLT
HTML CG Work
Finding:
Before LC
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.
See
Before LC
Do all "shoulds" of RFC 3023 section 7.1 apply?
This issue was split off from issue
Before LC
So I recommend a TAG finding along the following lines:
Type-augmented XML is a good thing and a recommendation should be prepared describing it both at the infoset and syntax level. (I gather there is already some work along these lines in XML Schema?). Serious consideration should be given to 80/20 points rather than simply re-using the plethora of primitive types from XML Schema.
Type-augmented XML has nothing to say about default values created in any schema.
Any software can create and/or use type-augmented XML, whether or not any validation is being performed.
Work on XQuery and other things that require a Type-Augmented Infoset must not depend on schema processing, and should not have normative linkages to any schema language specifications.
For now, the TAG has decided the issue by withdrawing it. From TB: "I learned that while there are linkages between xquery and xml schema, they are non-normative; you can implement xquery with other schema languages; so I don't see an architecture issue at the moment. I submitted a large comment to the xquery process that there does remain too much intermingling with xml schema that could easily go away. If the two specs aren't made sufficiently independent, I expect to come back to the TAG."
Acknowledged by TB by virtue of WG agreement
For me this questions depends on whether the document type is a human-readable hypertext document, when generic hypertext xml tools would benefit from knowing what is a link, and whether significance of the URI in question is a hypertext link or something different.
See
Paragraph
Ping the chairs of those groups asking for an update on xlinkScope-23.
Sent emails to chairs of HTML WG and XML CG.
Before LC
For me this questions depends on whether the document type is a human-readable hypertext document, when generic hypertext xml tools would benefit from knowing what is a link, and whether significance of the URI in question is a hypertext link or something different.
Maybe a compromise is to only allow the link to specify the content-type when the server is FTP (or something else with no content-type control) or the HTTP server returns text/plain or octet-steam, which seem to be used for "don't know" types.
Draft Finding
Approved Finding
The
Acknowledged by TBL by virtue of WG agreement
Produce a new draft of the finding that takes into account comments from reviewers on MIME finding.
TAG accepted 18 Feb 2004 draft. IJ will publish as accepted finding.
Before LC
Strawman from Tim Bray:
The architecture of the World Wide Web does not support the notion of a "home page" or a "gateway page", and any effort in law to pretend otherwise is therefore bad policy. The publication of a Uniform Resource Identifier is, in the architecture of the Web, a statement that a resource is available for retrieval. The technical protocols which are used for Web interaction provide a variety of means for site operators to control access, including password protection and the requirement that users take a particular route to a page. It would be appropriate to bring the law to bear against those who violate these protocols. It is not appropriate to use it in the case where information consumers are using the Web according to its published rules of operation.
Accepted
Acknowledged by TB by virtue of WG agreement
Take back to Comm Team publicity of this finding.
TAG discussed this issue with Janet Daly at ftf meeting in Japan.
I would however, support an assertion in the architecture document that important information SHOULD be stored and (optionally) delivered with markup that is as semantically rich as achievable, and that separation of semantic and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is architecturally sound.
Draft finding from CL:
Section
Talk with others about aspects of this finding and revise it.
The XML Core WG would like TAG input on whether the desirability of adopting IRIs into the web infrastructure early outweighs the anticipated disruption of legacy systems.
The XML Core WG would also like TAG input on
the wisdom of early adoption given the
See TB's
Revise position statement on use of IRIs.
This action has been completed and
replaced by virtue of the
Explain how existing specifications
that handle IRIs are inconsistent.
Merged into tracker
with Norm report the Namespaces/URI/IRI discussion to XML Core.
DanC to ask TimBL whether XQuery and
XML Namespaces 1.1 address
IRIEverywhere to his satisfaction,
noting
TimBL to clarify
Tracking transferred to tracker
Do fragment identifiers refer to a syntactice element (at least for XML content), or can they refer to abstractions?
Example from
MyDrawing.svg#svgView(viewBox(0,200,1000,1000))
The SVG spec states "This form of addressing specifies the desired view of the document (e.g., the region of the document to view, the initial zoom level) completely within the SVG fragment specification."
From Dan Connolly:
Do you consider the quoted paragraph above in error?
Or do you disagree with my interpretation of it, i.e. that MyDrawing.svg#svgView(viewBox(0,200,1000,1000)) identifes a view of the drawing, and not any particular XML element (nor other syntactic structure) in the document.
Per
See
Also related: Content negotiation? Opacity of URIs?
In general, the fragment part of a URI may be used to refer to abstractions as well as syntactic fragments of a representation; the media type identifies a specification, which explains the semantics.
Summarize resolution.
Well past sell by date
monitor and bring back up when time is appropriate
dropped by chair
Before LC
When, whither and how to profile W3C specifications in the XML Family
check status of XMLProfiles-29 with Paul Grosso
Dropped by chair (overtaken bye events)
Given that binary infosets (currently,
See
OGC is another customer for binary XML.
W3C has chartered the
Write to www-tag with his thoughts on adding to survey.
TB said he had nothing to add to the survey.
The TAG's preliminary response is that URIs should not include metadata. The TAG accepted this issue to provide guidance on addressing the issues raised.
From Ossi:
To outline the following text, I'm actually suggesting (asking comments for) two rather practical things:
There should be a uniform way to declare version history of web resources (recommended by W3C)?, and more importantly
There should be a "clean", uniform way to refer to (and thus access) the metadata of web resources?
See
See
On the topic of URI fragility, see
the section entitled
See comments from
See
Produce a revision of this finding based on Vancouver ftf meeting discussion.
Send rationale about why WSDL WG wants to peek inside the URI.
Make progress on metadataInURI-31 with Noah
ER and TVR to review draft finding on Authoritative Metadata
produce new version of
Noah to produce final draft of metadataInURI-31 by 11 August 2006
Add security section on risks of
serving executables as .jpeg to
metadataInURI draft. Confirmed on
Review security section on risks of serving executables as .jpeg to metadataInURI draft.
Review security section on risks of
serving executables as .jpeg to
metadataInURI draft. Confirmed on
Rework metadataInURI 1st example to be more explicit as per Tim's suggestion, and update GPN per Dan's suggestion.
Seek a copy of the official court record of the UK case on ../../ etc.
Noah to update status to make metadataInURI an approved finding.
announce metadataInURI draft once it's in final form.
I would like to raise a new issue to the
TAG. The issue is how to determine ID
attributes in any new work on XML, such as a
new profile or subset as dealt within issue
Chris Lilley has started an
Offshoot of
See
At their 12 May 2004 ftf meeting, the TAG accepted the proposed finding "How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD?". The issue is deferred while the XML Core WG continues work on this issue.
Point Core WG to CL finding once made public.
NW: I can find no record of having completed this action, but I believe that I did and cite[2] the pointer from the XML Core WG home page as evidence that I did.
Raised by the TAG as an offshoot of
Offshoot of
Pend this issue until significant progress
is made by the
Review CDF requirements and report back.
review CDF requirements and report back
Raised by the TAG as an offshoot of
Offshoot of
with help from HT, produce a draft finding on XML functions in January
summarize history of
DTD/namespace/mimetype version
practice, including XHTML, SOAP, and
XSLT. Confirmed on
Tracking transferred to tracker
write a short email to make his point so we capture this for future
create a draft finding on xmlFunctions-34 to the working group by the 8th of Feb. 2007.
See
review Henry's draft.
Withdrawn pending a new draft.
review Henry's draft.
Withdrawn pending a new draft.
SKW to send comments on urnsAndRegistries draft
Email review sent
Henry to prepare new draft of xmlFunctions-34 by mid-July
Tracking transferred to tracker
Raised by the TAG as an offshoot of
Offshoot of
The TAG decided to defer this issue pending work by the GRDDL WG and/or the RDFa/HTML/SemWeb-deployment WGs.
State the issue with a reference to
XML Core work. See
DanC to ask Mimasa and Mark Birbeck about feasability of using substitution groups in XHTML modularization, cc public-xml-versioning
Tracking transferred to tracker
The architecture of the web is that the space of identifiers on an http web site is owned by the owner of the domain name. The owner, "publisher", is free to allocate identifiers and define how they are served.
Any variation from this breaks the web. The problem is that there are some conventions for the identifies on websites, that
/robots.txt is a file controlling robot access
/w3c/p3p is where you put a privacy policy
/favico is an icon representative of the web site
and who knows what others. There is of course no list available of the assumptions different groups and manufacturers have used.
More in the
Note:
Refine strawman based on 8 Oct 2003
meeting and draft new finding.
Reconfirmed at
Proposal
Propose an example of a site description.
Is it wise to use fragment IDs for identifying abstract components within a namespace, even though it is the most natural and convenient mechanism? Is there another mechanism that would be preferable?
Draft finding
Write up resolution from 8 Oct 2003 meeting and include in revised finding on this topic.
Revise draft finding based on comments at 20 Oct teleconf.
IJ published this from material sent by DO to IJ privately on 30 Oct 2003.
seek clarification about http://example.org/TicketAgent.wsdl20#wsdl.interface(TicketAgent)
Some scenarios that this issue concerns:
Client PUTs representation to server without content type information; what is proper server behavior?
Client PUTs representation to server with content type information, but server ignores. Is this architecturally incorrect?
Client PUTs representation to server with detectably inconsistent content type information. What is proper server behavior (e.g., signal error and not silently ignoring)?
New version of approved finding
Approved TAG finding
prepare putMediaType-38 for further discussion
reopening discussion.
update
produce a new version of the finding
Propose disclaimer and discuss with Roy.
TBL: "The community needs:
A concise statement of the above architectural elements from different specs in one place, written in terms which the ontology community will understand, with pointers to the relevant specifications.
Some outline guidance on specific questions brought up in email questions.
This includes:
Is a given inference engine expected to take into account a given document under given circumstances?
how does one avoid having to commit to things one does not trust?
There may be some need to clarify frequent misunderstandings by making some things clear."
Some
Mailing list for discussions on this
issue: public-sw-meaning (
Notify the SW CG that we talked about rdfURIMeaning-39 and didn't decide to do anything now
Mail sent to Semantic Web Coordination Group.
Some issues:
Fragment identifier syntax
Related issue: URI Squatting?
Draft a finding for this issue.
Reconfirmed
consider noting in finding on good uri practices that gooduri#xmlname is a useful pattern because it can be used easily in RDF
What are good practices for designing extensible XML languages and for handling versioning?
Draft finding from DO and NW
Propose shortened version of DO/NW proposed text
Revised text
Propose revision of IJ proposal that better addresses NW and DO concerns.
Part of
Text reviewed, edited at FTF meeting in Japan.
Suggest changes to section about extensibility related to "when to tunnel".
contextualize his scenarios, such as more on what is happening with SOAP and WSDL.
Update finding with ext/vers
with NM continue and extrapolate the
versioning work DO et al have been
doing already, updating the
terminology section. Reconfirmed
derive RDF/RDFS/OWL version of
terminology from whiteboard /
make sure that what he is doing with
ontology of XML infoset fits with
what DanC is doing on ontology of
Language etc. Reconfirmed on
update extensibility finding with
the result of Edinburgh F2F
discussion and related diagrams.
Reconfirmed
produce a new draft of his versioning finding by the end of the year
provide two diagrams: one XML-ignorant, one XML-aware
Write to www-tag about CSS
versioning being a problem "levels".
Reconfirmed
Look at the document and see if it
is good for informing on this SMIL
problem of multiple namespaces.
Reconfirmed
Review definitions of partial
understanding, backward compatible,
and forward compatible.
Tracking transferred to tracker
Henry to extend his paper to a definition of monotonicity and its relevance to our versioning finding.
Capture UML diagram for the minutes.
Produce some information about NVDL
for the finding. Continued
Email about NVDL and versioning.
Henry to unearth thread in which he and Robin Berjon discussed XML versioning
Dave Orchard to draft discussion of using substitution groups for examples like HTML <p> mixed content and/or <td> content.
Email from David Orchard "Use of Substitution Groups" take 2
Email from David Orchard "Use of Substitution Groups" take 2.1
Norm to review
Email from Norm "(Partial) review of Versioning XML"
dorchard to produce revised Versioning-part1 and Versioning-XML for May 18th
Email from Dave announcing new drafts.
NDW to note a problem near
webarch/#pr-version-info in the
errata. Continued:
Errata message from Norm
NM to draft a blog item for review
and, pending creation of a TAG blog
mechanism, post it. Continued:
Tracking transferred to tracker
NM to write up his paper comments on
extensibility and versioning
Continued:
Tracking transferred to tracker
Dave Orchard to revise Versioning Findings in response to F2F discussions.
Continuation:David to update all 3 documents in versioning finding (by mid-July2007)
This "issue" collects all discussions relevant to Web architecture that are not directly related to any other issue.
- - - - - - - - - -
Semantic Web Architecture:
Self-describing Web:
Security/Authentication:
CURIEs:
See
Device description repositories:
New and changing media types:
Naming and Virtual Worlds
HT, VQ to review the
Dropped by chair
Revise
Dropped by chair
Recommend intro to Dretske thought
Dropped by chair
TBL and NW to write a draft of Nadia and Dirk first semantic web book
dropped by chair
Write a report on the state of the art authentication in the web.
Presentation at Edinburgh f2f, see
also
Withdrawn as of DC's report on the
Draft "Dont use passwords in the
clear". See
Obsoleted in favor of Ed's action of
18 Apr 06 under
Review draft state finding for 9 May.
Contact Misha to follow up on f2f discussion on CURIEs at AC meeting
Invite a DD WG person to a TAG meeting to discuss DDR requirements
Dropped by chair (overtaken bye events)
Revise CSCP (Cookies, Shopping
Carts, Personalization, etc) in
State finding. Confirmed
Dropped by chair
Review new version of state finding
when it comes out. Confirmed
Withdrawn pending a new draft.
Review new version of state finding when it comes out
Withdrawn pending a new draft.
draft a very short email suggesting that in general its good [using media types that aren't yet registered but used]
Redraft [position on unregistered mime types], forward to AB unless unresolved negative comments from TAG members
With Norm, draft semantic web architecture stories and such.
Will try to outline or sketch a story.
dropped by chair
Tim and Norm to produce a new draft of "Data on the Web" by end of January 2007.
droppped by chair
Stuart to contact the Semantic Web Deployment and HTML WG chairs for an update on the status of this document and to encourage them to make it public.
Email to HTML-WG and SWD-WG chairs and team-contacts requesting visibility of CURIE WD
HST to circulate a candidate description to tag@w3.org [to frame a distinct topic/issue on CURIE].
Noah to create a new draft on self-describing Web by 23rd for review at F2F
Noah to revise Self-Describing Web finding in response to F2F discussion.
Tracking transferred to tracker
NM to contact Don Brutzman to query about possible contacts about naming in V-Ws and integration with the Web.
Tracking transferred to tracker
How are secondary resources derived? The TAG discussed the case of parse='xml' and fragment identifiers in XInclude.
Write to David Orchard saying that XInclude no longer uses frag ids and the TAG is unable to construct from its meeting record what the issue was. We will discuss this further if we get help, but otherwise expect to close without action.
NW reports that he has sent mail; awaiting reply.
The XML architecture has tended to be built according to a motto that all kinds of things are possible, and the application has to be able to chose the features it needs. This is fine when there are simply the XML toolset and a single "application". However, real life is more complicated, and things are connected together in all kinds of ways. I think the XML design needs to be more constraining: to offer a consistent idea of what a chunk of XML is across all the designs, so that the value of that chunk can be preserved as invariant across a complex system. Digital Signature and RDF transport are just intermediate parts of the design which need to be transparent. This required a notion of equality, and a related canonical serialization.
1 Mar 2004: XML Core WG discussion of issue
xmlChunk-44 was an attempt to tackle deep
equals for XML. The
Summarize xmlChunk-44, solicit input from www-tag.
The xmlChunk-44 problem statement (resend)
Chair declared closed.
Coordinate joint meeting with XML Core, notably around xmlChunk-44.
Tuesday, 4 March
Chair declared closed.
Write up a named equivalence function based on today's discussion (e.g., based on infoset, augmented with xml:lang/xml:base, not requiring prefixes, etc.).: Write up a named equivalence function based on today's discussion (e.g., based on infoset, augmented with xml:lang/xml:base, not requiring prefixes, etc.).
See email for details of proposal.
Overtaken by closure of issue.
Norm to review draft finding on xmlChunk-44 to see whether issue can be closed and finding approved.
Overtaken by closure of issue.
Norm to mark as abandoned the finding on deep equals and announce xmlChunk-44 is being closed without further action, with reason
Details in
The TAG raised this issue to discuss issues such as paramterization of media type strings to provide additional granularity for different format versions.
See also issue
See also
Write draft finding on this issue.
check with CDF WG to see how they have solved media type issue(s) and if they have more details
Dropped by chair (overtaken bye events)
XML 1.1 makes essentially four changes to XML 1.0:
It increases the number of characters that may legally appear in Names.
Adds several new characters that may appear in text if they are encoded as numeric character references (C0 controls except NUL).
Removes several characters so that they may not appear in text if they are not encoded as numeric character references (C1 controls).
Adds as a line-end character.
XML Schema 1.0 normatively refers to XML Namespaces 1.0 for the definition of QName and XML Namespaces 1.0 normatively refers to XML 1.0 for the definition of Name and XML 1.0 has fewer Name characters than XML 1.1.
That means that by a strict interpretation of the Recommendations, it is impossible to write an XML Schema for a document that uses the "new" Name characters. And by extension, it is impossible for an XPath expression or a protocol document to use XML 1.1.
Forward
See section 5.4 of the
check on current status of issue xml11Names-46 with XML CG
bring us back to xml11Names-46 after the XML Schema WG publishes its expected Last Call WD.
Find a test case; reminds self to check with Henry for the Ice Cream example.
Test case email from Norm
From the commenters
"In a nutshell, it [
The issue has been raised with the relevant
The
Inform WS-Addressing WG Chair (
draft something indicating the issues with EPR and potential solutions
invite Mark Baker to future telcon to discuss his concern
The question is about the identity of a namespace, in particular, the xml: namespace. One perspective is that the xml: namespace consists of xml:space, xml:lang, and xml:base (and no other names) because there was a point in time in which those where the only three names from that namespace that had a defined meaning. Another perspective is that the xml: namespace consists of all possible local names and that only a finite (but flexible) number of them are defined at any given point in time.
Approved TAG finding
NW to announce TAG's acknolwedgement of issue nameSpaceState-48
NW to work with HT, DO on namespaceState-48
provide a draft of new namespace
policy doc (
New
apply changes to nameSpaceState-48 document and recirculate for comments
NW has published a
make the changes, publish
NW has updated and published
There are many situations in which there appeared to be confusion in the Web community regarding the architectural relationship between URI schemes and network protocols.
Noah to send announcment note to www-tag to announce SchemesProtocols-49 issue and gather feedback
Noah to figure out what to do next on SchemesProtocols-49
produce a new version of
This issue covers a) URIs for namespace names b) URNs and other proposed systems for "location independent" names c) XML and other registries, and perhaps centralized vs. decentralized vocabulary tracking.
29 Mar 2005:
Note to www-tag to announce URNsAndRegistries-50
Henry and David to draft initial finding on URNsAndRegistries-50
Henry and David to update draft
finding
DO done and HT overtaken by more
recent actions ie.
DanC to find timbl's draft, give it to Ivan Herman in preparation for HCLSIG meeting in Amsterdam.
DanC to look for an example of commercial motivation for alternatives to DNS.
DO to explore the space of external registries and to post to the tag member list.
"XRI Business environment"
Tracking transferred to tracker
Henry to revise URNsAndRegistries-50 finding in response to F2F discussion.
Tracking transferred to tracker
Since short strings are scarce resources shared by the global community, fair and open processes should be used to manage them. A pattern that I'd like to see more of is
start with a URI for a new term,
if it picks up steam, introduce a synonym that is a short string thru a fair/open process.
Lately I'm seeing quite the opposite.
Nearby issues:
DanC to introduce new issue standardizedFieldValues-51
write an update on issue standardizedFieldValues-51 and microformat
Many applications send passwords in the clear. This raises obvious security issues. The TAG should recommend not to send passwords in the clear and propose alternatives.
Discussions at
Draft finding
Ed to communicate new issue and
produce first draft finding.
Reconfirmed
Vincent to open the issue on the issues list
revise "passwords in the clear" in light of Vancouver discussion.
publish update in one week for discussion in two weeks 31st Oct 06.
Produce a new version with these changes.
Alert Web Security Context Working Group (chair Mary Ellen Zurko) to content of passords in clear draft, to negotiate a review by them, and to the fact that we are working toward publication.
Send email about onsubmit hooking via javascript and its impact on PWintheclear to www-tag.
Stuart to summarize discussion to MEZ and make plans for further progress.
A generic resource is a conceptual resource which may stand for something which has different versions over time, different translations, and/or different content-type representations. How should one indicate the relationship between these?
See TAG finding
Draft a rough finding on Single URI, Multiple content for review at the June f2f.
Revise genericResources draft, incorporating resource/representation, complete 2.4.x story better, emphasize discoverability, incorporate DO's comments, attempt best practice draft 3.
Publish new version of Generic Resources by Aug 8th 2006
Produce a new revision of generic-Resources-53 by 15 Sep 2006
Produce proposed final genericResources draft for approval at Vancouver F2F
Update Abstract of genericResource draft, add item about search, address the rel='generic' question, deal with the media type issue as discussed in Vancouver.
Is the indefinite persistence of 'tag soup' HTML consistent with a sound architecture for the Web? If so, what changes, if any, to fundamental Web technologies are necessary to integrate 'tag soup' with SGML-valid HTML and well-formed XML?
Propose description of TagSoupIntegration-54
T.V. Raman to draft initial discussion material on tag soup for discussion on 26 March, draft on the 19th or so.
Wroking
Security concerns with browsers sniffing unlabelled UTF7 encoding
See also
Create issue in list and announce it.
Do the expected benefits of
This issue continues a thread of discussion
that originated under
DC to respond to
Transferred to Stuart
Look at the difference between QNAME in XML and SPARQL
[Aside theses are the closest references the chair was able to find to the transfer of this action item]
Tracking transferred to tracker