W3C | TAG | Previous: 2 Dec teleconf | Next: 16 Dec 2002 teleconf
Minutes of 9 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference
Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details · issues list · www-tag archive
1. Administrative
- Roll call: SW (Chair), TBL (Scribe), DO, DC, CL, NW (also scribed), PC,
IJ. Regrets: TB, RF.
- Accepted 2 Dec minutes with correction
that DC action was to point tag, not www-tag to doc for
uriMediaType-9.
- Accepted this agenda
- Next meeting: 16 Dec 2002
- Following meeting: 6 Jan 2003
1.1 Completed actions
- Action TB: Send proposed changes to SW slides to tag@w3.org.
- Action NW: Create updated slides for XML 2002 presentation.
- Action IJ: Update SW slides with pointer to NW slides (and refer to TB
comments).
- Action IJ: 2002/11/25: Update rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
to indicate waiting on WSDL WG.
1.2 Meeting planning
2. Technical
- uriMediaType-9
- namespaceDocument-8
- xmlProfiles-29
IJ notes that TBL did not minute who said what in some of what
follows.
- uriMediaType-9:
- Action DC 2002/12.02: Point to this draft on www-tag: "A
Registry of Assignments using Ubiquitous Technologies and Careful
Policies."
[timMIT]
- Dan: I got endorsement of this from Tim Bray and Norm W.
One question is, publish in TAG's name?
- A TAG finding reference is missing
- Should one bring up with IETF-W#C meeting first? No, March is too
long
- I propose that the TAG adopt this in being co-author with Mark
darft-w3c-registries*
- Note that darft-w3c is a possibility since last IETF-W3C telcon.
- Anyone want to discuss, object, etc?
- RESOLVED: The TAG adopts A
Registry of Assignments using Ubiquitous Technologies and Careful
Policies as suitable for publication as draft-w3c*
- Stuart: Thanks to Dan and to Mark B
- Dan: One thing to discuss:
- This came up under iss 9, the idea of URIs for media typed.
- [Ian]
- TBL: "Media type document"
- [timMIT]
- If we follow this, we will probably end up with a URI for text/html
with no #
- TimBL: This is OK if we really can just treat it as a URI for a media
type document, not for an abstract concept.
In principle.
Chris arrives.
- namespaceDocument-8
- Action NW 2002/11/18: Take a stab at indicating pros and cons for
the various RDDL/RDF/Xlink designs arising from TB's RDDL
challenge.
- RDDL
Proposal from Tim Bray.
- RDDL
Proposal from Chris Wilper
[timMIT]
- stu: I haven't seen many responses to Tim Bray's challenge
- [DanCon]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/11/rddl/ex1.xml
<- http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2002/11/25/2002-11-25.html#1038249302.320672
- ^timbl's proposal, I think
- [timMIT]
- TimBL: I had one but forgot to send it.
- [Ian]
- CL: What happens if no satisfactory replies to contest?
- [timMIT]
- Paul: I have been talking to a lot of people about this, and I really
wonder about whether we are right to look for just one format.
- [Ian]
- IJ: I think the goal was to suggest one approach, not the only
approach. The goal of this effort was to avoid saying "do this" without
providing any example of how.
- [timMIT]
- TBL: The Web wasn't designed like that, or we would still have HTML
0.9. Should we have many posisbilities, and guidelines about what
should be there?
- Ian: My understadning was that we are not proposing *the* solution
but *one* solution - to show there is one which works. See minutes of
12 Feb 2002
meeting: "Resolution is incomplete. Consensus points from 12 Feb ftf
meeting are:
- Namespace URIs should be dereferencable (to find useful
explanatory material).
- The TAG has not yet reached consensus on the nature of the
material at the end of a namespace URI. The TAG discussed the value
of human readable materials, schemas, and indirections to useful
adjuncts."
- Chris: Saying it is human readable is easy, and if we don't need it
to be machine readable.
- [Ian]
- IJ: We did say it should be machine readable....
- [DanCon]
- folks should feel free to use IRC as a parallel channel, as far as
I'm concerned.
- [timMIT]
- Chris: ... then you don't need much more.
- Norm: I didn't think we were defining *the* format, but we were
defining a really good one.
- I thought our excercise was to produce a good one, but not
insist.
- [PaulC]
- But we did not settle on only one image format e.g. GIF or else we
would have never been able to permit the usuage of JPEG and SVG.
- [Ian]
- DC: RDDL is a distraction. It suggests that XHTML, RDF, and XML
Schema don't get the job done.
- [timMIT]
- TimBL: I think there is something to be gained from a standard here
to stop grag.
- [Zakim]
- DanCon, you wanted to say that XHTML, RDF, and XML Schema already
work fine; RDDL is a distraction
- [timMIT]
- DanC: I think a good appraoch to stick an xml schema there and an
html document.
- [DanCon]
- Chris disagreed with DanC
- [timMIT]
- Paul: It is a tradeoff - if we had standardized on GIF would we never
had had PNG?
- DavidO: I was always unhappy with saying there should be a document
there. This gets confused with what it is. Saying that xml schema would
be a good thing there IMHO is a bad thing. If we can't get to
resolution for what the best format is, then I would prefer us to say
there should NOT be a document available.
- [DanCon]
- gee... what's the best format for images? JPEG or SVG? surely it
depends on the image, no, daveo?
- [timMIT]
- Chris; I was not suggetsing that RDDL should b the *one true* format.
As I said, if human-readable is all we want, then we have no
problem.
- [DaveO]
- Dan, this is an argument we had almost a year ago.
- [timMIT]
- As for putting a schema there, clearly that would [scribe fails to
catch the logic of Chris' argument]
- [Ian]
- TBL: Are you saying that putting a scheme there is bad?
- CL: Yes.
- [timMIT]
- CL: I am saying that having something which sits there and points to
it vastly better than content negotiating.
- [DanCon]
- I disagree.
- [DaveO]
- DO agrees with CL
- [Zakim]
- TimMIT, you wanted to respond to PaulC re SVG
- [DanCon]
- we have not decided ANYTHING, actually. why is anybody surprised that
the discussion continues?
- [Ian]
- We have consensus minuted at earlier meetings. I am surprised.
- [DanCon]
- "Resolved: The point about URIs should have dereferencable material
at their end applies to namespaces."
- -- http://www.w3.org/2002/02/12-tagmem-irc
- <- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#namespaceDocument-8
- [timMIT]
- Tim: I thought we had come to a consensus that itis good to have a
document , and that human readable is useful and machine readable are
good.
- Ian: There was never any "must". No one suggested that asingle format
will meet all needs.
- [The TAG attempts to establish what we had already
agreed]
- [Ian]
- From xml
namespaces spec, 2:
- "It is not a goal that it be directly usable for retrieval of a
schema (if any exists). An example of a syntax that is designed with
these goals in mind is that for Uniform Resource Names [RFC2141].
However, it should be noted that ordinary URLs can be managed in such a
way as to achieve these same goals."
- [timMIT]
- DO: I understood: we were going to come up with a format, and RDDL
was a good start, but my assumption was that we would have a standard
before we recommended putting anything there.
- [PaulC]
- My problem is with people saying "the format" instead of "a format"
or "an example format".
- [timMIT]
- Ian: David, do you need one single format, or a general
receommendation of one among several?
- DO: Either
- [DanCon]
- My problem is any work that suggests sticking an XML schema or RDF
schema there isn't OK will get an objection from me.
- [Ian]
- IJ: I just want to be sure nobody expects it to be "the format".
- [DanCon]
- any work that suggests sticking an XML schema or RDF schema there
isn't OK will get an objection from me.
- [timMIT]
- Chris: We say that it meeets the criteria, which are not
well-defined.
- [DaveO]
- I will object to XML Schema being OK.
- [timMIT]
- PaulC: We should call it "only an example format"
- DO: Do you think that the issue about which vocabulary should use
HTML should be a "best practice"?
- TimBL: URIs are the only thing we insist on [for the Web]. We don't
insist on any data formats.
- Paul: Sounds like we are design this like everything else on the web,
that you can use something else if you want to.
- Stu: TimBray not being here may be a problem. He and Jonathan had
been working on the document. I still find there is a problem with
ambiguity - namespace vs namespace document. I can see a solution here
having a Namespace Docuement being identfied, and that indirectly
identifying a namespace.
- [DaveO]
- SW, I share your concern.
- [timMIT]
- Norm: I never thought that RDDL would be part of the namespace rec. I
thought we would publish it as a separate finding.
- Chris: me too.
- TimBL: me too
- DOl: I mean 'effectively" chaneg the namespace rec, not actually.
- Ian: I hoped that if the NS rec were revised, then it would be more
explicit about it being OK or good to put a document there. It is
easier to incorporatea tag finding into a namespaces revision if the
language is clearer about utility of putting something at the end of a
namespaces URI; it's easier to read one doc instead of 2.
- timbL: I agree.
- SKW: Any change of TAG attitude here?
- Norm: Not without TimBray
SKW: I will update TimBray on our discussion.
- xmlProfiles-29
- Action DO 2002/12/02: Talk to XMLP WG about this new issue.
- Action NW 2002/12/09: Talk to XML Core WG about this new issue
[timMIT]
- Chris: people have been discussing entities. TimBray sugegsted
removing external entities but it wasn't clear MathML would be
helped.
- [Ian]
- [Discussion about entities/MathML]
- [timMIT]
- DanC: I know people on MathML who di dnot want to use entities ...
they had a <mchar name="..."/> before but it went away. See email
from DanC on this topic.
- [timMIT]
- Norm: The i18n folks pushed back on mchar as yet another way
- [DanCon]
- See email
from David Carlisle, on why mchar went away.
- [timMIT]
- TimBL: If schema allowed one to define character entities?
- DanC: Why not use elements?
- ____? Can't use em in attributes.
- Norm: Substring XML discussion was driven by XMLP group profiling out
"internal subsets".
- DanC: round tripping.
- ... is something was serialized with &foo; do you have to write
it out like that?
- [Zakim]
- Stuart, you wanted to ask about background from XMLP
- [timMIT]
- SKW: The XMLP -- do we need to respond to them?
- DO: We could say, Thanks - good rationale.
- ACTION SW: Thanks XMLP WG
- [timMIT]
- SKU: Are we on XML Core WG ground here?
- DaveO: don't understand the question about being in scope for XML
core. It is in scope as I understand their charter under examining
possible future version.
- [Norm]
- dir
- [timMIT]
- Norm; I think we should invide Paul Grosso to a TAG meeting.
- PaulC: I agree. People have been using "profile" and 'subsetting" in
confusing ways.
- [Norm]
- CL: I agree with PaulC, some people have been thinking that 2.0 would
be smaller and others that it would be larger. It doesn't say anything
explicit in the charter about profiling or a subset. But equally, it
says they could do a 2.0 if they think it's advisable. Perhaps, they're
telling us they think it's inadvisable: We should try to herd this
discussion in useful directions.
- PC: Several people have put words in Paul Grosso's mouth along the
lines of trying to decide what the boundaries are. We could do it by
email, or here.
- CL: I think it would be very useful.
- SW: I'd be happy to invite Paul Grosso. We probably need to show
some leadership in formulating what the issue is
- DaveO: I think the TAG should make up it's mind about what it thinks
of profiling/subsetting, etc. For example, if the Core WG says it's a
sucky idea, that might be one response, then we should think about
whether we would agree or disagree with that. I don't want to couple
what the TAG thinks about this issue with what the Core WG thinks.
- SW: Ahead or in parallel with meeting with Paul
- [PaulC]
- That was brutely Norm volunteering to take the "high ground".
- [Norm]
- ACTION NW:
Write up a first draft of the TAG position
- ACTION SW: Invite Paul Grosso to a future
meeting
2.1 Postponed
- Status of URIEquivalence-15, IRIEverywhere-27. 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.
- Action MD 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.
CL: Both actions pending.
- binaryXML-30
- Action CL 2002/12/02: Write up problem statement about binary XML;
send to www-tag.
- fragmentInXML-28
: Use of fragment identifiers in XML.
- xlinkScope-23
(5 minutes)
- Action SW 2002/11/18: Organize a special-interest teleconf for
discussion of this issue on linking. Pending; see email
from SW (TAG-only).
2.2 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
- Completed Action IJ 2002/1202: Action IJ: Link to TB's "URI
Comparison" from findings page.
- 6 Dec 2002 Editor's Draft of
Arch Doc (new):
IJ: Is it ok for me to publish Editor's Drafts at will? TAG agrees to
publish early, often.
CL: Be sure to highlight any controversial changes in Editor's
Drafts.
- Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3 based on resolutions of 18 Nov 2002
ftf meeting.
- Action DC 2002/11/04: Review "Meaning" to
see if there's any part of self-describing Web for the arch doc. Done.
- Complete review of TBs proposed
principles CP9, CP10 and CP11
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/12/09 23:01:25 $