W3C | TAG | Previous: 24 Feb teleconference | Next: 24 Mar
2003 teleconf
Minutes of 17 Mar 2003 TAG teleconference
Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details · issues list · www-tag archive
1. Administrative (30min)
- Roll call. All present: SW (Chair), TBL, DC, DO, CL, TB, PC, NW, RF, IJ
(Scribe)
- Accepted 24 Feb telecon
minutes
- Acceped this agenda?
Yes, with addition of discussion on forward references from XInclude
spec
- Next meeting: 24 March. Regrets: TBL. At risk: CL
1.1 Meeting planning
- Resolved: The TAG resolved not to meet
face-to-face in Budapest in May due to scheduling issues.
Completd action PC: nform organizers that
TAG does not intend to meet during that week in Budapest. (Done)
- The TAG will strive to organize a virtual meeting shortly after the WWW
Conference.
Action TBL: Propose June dates (after 4
June). [Also, some willingness also to meet before May confs]
- The TAG expects to discuss its W3C track presentation
early-April.
- The TAG expects to discuss its presentation to the AC mid-April.
Not discussed:
1.2 Mailing list management
Resolved:
- Incorporate some proposed
text from Stuart Williams into the tips on communicating
with the TAG.
Action IJ: Incorporate said text. Then,
action SW: Send msg to www-tag drawing
people's attention to revised text.
- Create a new list (public-tag-announce) for announcements of meeting
minutes, meeting summaries, findings, new issues, resolved issues, and
drafts of architecture documents.
Action IJ: Request list setup; update TAG
home page.
1.3 Review of input from technical plenary (xlinkScope-23)
The TAG discussed the Tech Plenary
BOF report from Henry Thompson that relates to TAG issue
xlinkScope-23.
[Ian]
- SW: Summary - The Hypertext CG and XML CG should constitute a small
(six to eight members) joint task force to write a reqs document.
Question of timeframe; a priori expected commitment to the outcome.
Spirit of proposal generally accepted.
- DC: I'm sort of tuned out since it looks like nothing will happen any
time soon.: That doesn't bother me.
- CL: Some sinking feeling at BOF that discussion will go on somewhere
else.
- TBL: Notes that BOF summary not that inspiring.
- TB: Count me as uninspired. I don't think we'll make the tech
discussion easier by having it over a reqs doc instead of over a
solution. What leads anyone to suspect that there is consensus out
there?
- TBL: Perhaps way to move forward is to require that (1) any feature
proposed must provide rationale for what cannot be done without that
feature
- [DanC]
- I have come to appreciate requirements documents. They have a time
and a place. esp in diverse communities that would like to learn to
talk to each other.
- [Ian]
- TB: I don't think we have to do anything (as the TAG). If the two
CG's think a task force is appropriate, that's great; What do we have
to offer at this point?
- CL: A statement that there is an architectural hole, for example.
- NW: I agree with TB. I think individuals might be able to do more,
but TAG may not be able to.
- DC: One possibility
- I asked NW what he thought the ideal solution was. I think NW's
position was that it would be better to pick one arbitrary choice,
rather than have N floating around.
- TAG could pick one and market it. The TAG exists as a marketplace
for attention.
- DC: I am not inspired by the technical material, nor that picking one
will be a substantial advance in the art. But we could be a force for
unification.
- TB: We tried this and convinced approximately nobody.
- DC: These things take time.
- TB [revision]: I think that it might be productive to invest some
time to examine the technical issues and let the community know what we
think. I'm not interested in the work of creating task forces.
- SW: I think most of TAG would back one choice as opposed to let 1k
flowers bloom. I have to communicate with two CGs.
- DC: I hear CL and TB saying "let's not close xlinkScope-23 without
further discussion". So I expect SW to tell CGs that we expect to
address this technically in substance; so we should be connected to
their discussions (somehow).
- CL: The TAG cares about the results (of the task force)
- Action SW: Draft note for TAG review of
comments to two CGs on the tone of today's discussion.
Other feedback from Tech Plenary:
- DC: I heard folks say this plenary was good because folks could
disagree civilly. I think the TAG had some role in establishing that
norm.
- Some discussion on whether to hold more than one TP per year.
- PC
reported some comments related to the Arch Doc.
DC: I haven't reviewed the tech planary IRC log for TAG suggestions, but I
tried to watch for TAG stuff real-time and send mail at the time.
1.4 Other stuff
- Action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that actions/pending
are orthogonal to decisions. IJ is working with PLH on this.
2. Technical (60min)
2.1 New issue? Message passing, a dual of shared state
Raised
by DC, no resolution from TAG.
[Ian]
- DC: Lots of arch discussions about REST/URIs. But there's another
category of "conversations"; e.g., "Conversations and
state." Voice, Web services closer to conversational interface. I
think that this is discussed enough that the TAG should either include
in arch doc, do a finding, etc.
- RF: What's the issue?
- DC: People get confused that "if it's not rest-like it shouldn't be
near W3C."
- TBL: The issue is that "not everything is rest."
- RF: That's not an issue.
- DC: I don't have text to propose to the editor right now.
- SW: I wonder whether placeholder sufficient.
- [DanC]
- what's the difference between an issue and a placeholder in the arch
doc?
- [Ian]
- TB: I find DC's statement of the issue kind of fuzzy. It may be on
the Web but it's architecture not defined by REST. I'm prepared to
accept that something could be usefully said in the arch doc.
- DC: See gist of Conversations and
state
- CL: At a minimum we should say that scope of arch doc is limited;
could be useful to point out to people when things are are outside of
scope.
- RF: I don't consider it an issue that there are other interaction
models on the information space that is the Web.
- TBL: Perhaps we should have an update on W3C Activities for the TAG
There's a lot of stuff happening in Voice Activity on dialogs; they are
modeling dialog paths and dialog outcomes.: Some Web Services work not
using REST either.
- RF: I understand the arguments; I don't understand why this is an
"issue"; just add to interactions section.
- SW Proposal: Put placeholder in arch doc.
- Action DC: Write some text for
interactions chapter of arch doc.
DC: Don't expect this week.
2.2 New issue? Forward references / decoupling specs / IRIs
Related issues: IRIEverywhere-27
- [timbl]
- Problems with XInclude moving to Rec include normative reference to
Xpointer, charmod, and IRI spec. (Never
mind parse=xml)
- [DanC]
- (pointer to this thing that's been pending for too long?)
- [DanC]
- we said IRIs are good? when/where?
- [Ian]
- TBL: Xpointer referenced for issues about frag id; points to charmod
for XML parsing; points to IRI spec with caveats.
- [Chris]
- we said people should prepare for IRI, do it by copy and paste, and
be ready to eratta once IRI was set in stone
- this seems to be exactly whatthey did
- [Ian]
- TBL: XInclude spec says the WG plans to revise spec when IRI spec is
finished.
- [Chris]
- tbl: no IRI in test suite
- [Ian]
- TBL: Arch questions - how to decouple the specs?
- [DanC]
- (reviewing our records, I find no decisions re IRIEverywhere-27)
- [Ian]
- TBL: No matter how the IRI spec comes out, it won't affect reviews of
XPointer. But it will affect conformance of software. I think that what
XInclude authors wrote in their spec may not be helpful since it may
lead to operability problems when the spec is changed.
- NW: I thought I had been told that I could tell Core WG that TAG was
in favor of IRIs.
- CL: I understood that, too.
- [DanC]
- We have decided *exactly* what our records say we have decided,
no?
- [Chris]
- so, they did exactly the right think on IRI reference
- [Ian]
- CL: IRIs not on Rec track; but is headed to being standard.
- CL: The piece that CL/MD/IJ wrote is now outdated.
- Action CL/IJ: Revise this IRI summary by
next week; send to www-tag.
- [Norm]
- Charmod references the IETF I-D IRI
- [Chris]
- norm - thanks
- [Ian]
- CL: Specs like XML Schema have similar wording; they cut and paste -
don't make normative ref.
- [DanC]
- For the record: The TAG has not made any decisions on IRIEverywhere.
Hence I'm not party to any advice anybody's giving outside the TAG on
this issue. I'd much prefer actions to advise other groups waited until
we'd decided the issue.
- [Chris]
- IRI is more mature, not yes at this point so we should trust them to
do the IRI-related erattum at the appropriate time
- [Ian]
- [Examples of other specs doing something similar re: IRIs]
- [Chris]
- ok so I believesd we had at least made some decisions, even if we had
not closed the whole issue
- [Norm]
- obviously, I thought we had general agreement as well
- [Ian]
- SW: RDF abstract model doc also talks about this with slightly
different language
- [TBray]
- s/tbray/pumpkin
- [Norm]
- in fact, if asked before this call, I might have believed that the
issue was open only because we didn't write down what we had agreedd
to
- [Chris]
- norm, that is where I thought we were, too
- [DanC]
- *all* issues are only open because we haven't written down what we
agreed to.
- [Norm]
- no, dan, there's more to it if we don't have agreeement, and you seem
to be asserting that we don't
- [DanC]
- all the work is in the writing it down.
[No resolution]
2.3 Architecture document
[Ian]
- DC: I would prefer that the 6 Feb
draft (21 Feb draft) go to TR page.
- IJ: I am frustrated with lack of input on this draft. Not sure how to
proceed.
- DC: I support TR page publication of 6 Feb draft. If you have a new
intro, seek specific reviewers.
- IJ: What can I do to get more input?
- DC: We all have limited time; I have to balance where to turn my
attention. Proposal: Request publication of 6 Feb draft on TR page.
- [Roy]
- I am focused on URI spec due to IETF meeting on Thursday
- [Chris]
- Sorry, I would need to see the differences between these before
agreeing to backtrack
- [Ian]
- IJ: I think the 21 Feb draft is a better intro, even if not what it
ultimately looks like.
- DC: I'd like to see diagram of specific URI of GET(URI)->
Representation
- [People keen on idea of diagram]
- [Norm]
- It's a heartbeat. I vote "concur" to publish any draft.
- [Ian]
- IJ: I hear three proposals: 6 Feb draft, 21 Feb draft, some hybrid
with 6 Feb intro
- SW: My preference is for hybrid.
- Action IJ: Draft a new hybrid that
incorporates intro of 6 Feb draft into 21 Feb version.
- IJ: I will try to get TB okay before requesting publication on TR
page.
SW: I am available to look at hybrid draft.
See also: findings.
- 21 Feb 2003
Editor's Draft of Arch Doc:
- Resolve to request publication of this draft (with modifications?)
on TR page?
- Action DC 2003/02/06: Attempt a redrafting of 1st para under
2.2.4
- Action DC 2003/01/27: write two pages on correct and incorrect
application of REST to an actual web page design
- Action DO2003/01/27: Please send writings regarding Web services to
tag@w3.org. DO grants DC license to cut and paste and put into DC
writing.
- Action CL 2003/0127: Draft language for arch doc that takes
language from internet media type registration, propose for arch doc,
include sentiment of TB's second sentence from CP10.
- Action TB 2003/01/27: Develop CP11 more: Avoid designing new
protocols if you can accomplish what you want with HTTP. DC suggested
describing GET/PUT/POST in a para each, then say "if your app looks
like that, use HTTP". Proposal
from TB to withdraw the proposal.
- See PC's
email on feedback from Tech Plenary
2.4 Issues not discussed
- URIEquivalence-15
- See draft
4. See also email
from Larry Masinter on xml namespaces.
- TBL 2003/01/20: Send email to uri@w3.org requesting terminology
change (regarding definition of "URI").
- Completed Action TB 2003/02/06: Send URI equiv draft finding
to uri@w3.org. (Done))
- rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
- Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema
desideratum (RQ-23).
- uriMediaType-9
- Action DC 2003/02/06: Start discussion on
discuss@apps.ietf.org, but not urgent
- RDFinXHTML-35
- Completed action DC 2003/02/06: Write up a crisp articulation of
issue RDFINHTML-35. Done
- HTTPSubstrate-16
- Action RF 2003/02/06: 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
- See message
from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
- errorHandling-20
- Action CL 2003/02/06: Write a draft finding on the topic of
(1) early/late detection of errors (2) late/early binding (3)
robustness (4) definition of errors (5) recovery once error has been
signaled. Deadline first week of March.
- IRIEverywhere-27
- Action CL 2003/01/27: Send piece that CL/MD/IJ wrote to
www-tag.
- metadataInURI-31
- Action SW 2003/02/06: Draft finding for this one.
- fragmentInXML-28
: Use of fragment identifiers in XML.
- Connection to content negotiation?
- Connection to opacity of URIs?
- No actions associated / no owner.
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2003/03/17 22:48:21 $