W3C | TAG | Previous: 1 Dec teleconf | Next: 15 Dec TAG teleconf

Minutes of 4 December 2003 TAG teleconference

Nearby: Teleconference details issues list (handling new issues) www-tag archive

1. Administrative (15min)

  1. Roll call: SW (Chair), TBL, DC, PC, RF, CL, NW, TB, IJ (Scribe). Absent: DO.
  2. Postponed proposed to accept the minutes of the 1 Dec teleconf.
  3. Accepted this agenda
  4. Next meeting: 15 Dec 2003 teleconf. 8 Dec teleconf canceled
  5. Not discussed: Video meeting in Feb 2003:
    1. Action SW/PC 2003/11/10: Explore possibility of TAG videolink TAG distributed meeting in February.
  6. Not discussed: Tech Plenary
    1. Continued action SW 2003/11/15: Take to tech plenary committee the TAG's proposal.

      SW: I haven't received a response from the committee yet (since they have yet to meet).

  7. Not discussed: Negotiations with WGs for last call:
    1. SW/I18N: SW sent. Reply pending from I18N.
    2. Schema/PC: PC sent. MSM has confirmed for Schema WG.
    3. SVG/CL: CL sent. CL has confirmed for SVG WG..
    4. HTML/IJ: IJ sent. Reply pending from HTML WG.
    5. Todo: Voice/SW, XML Core/NW, WSDL/DO

2. Technical (75min)

  1. Review of issues list to determine if satisfied with V 1.0 split
  2. Review of 3 Dec Editor's Draft of Arch Doc

2.1 Review of issues list to determine if satisfied with V 1.0 split

Issues list

The TAG resolved to make the following changes to the issues list. The TAG also expects to finish the associated action items before requesting the next transition after LC.

The TAG was otherwise satisfied with the state of the issues list w.r.t. Last Call.

2.2 Review of Architecture Document writing assignments

2.2.1 Recent action items

Ian
  1. Completed action IJ 2003/11/15: Inform reviewer that issue 6 closed. Sent email
Chris
  1. Completed action CL 2003/11/15: Write text to reviewer about the resolution of errorHandling-20.
Roy
  1. Action RF 2003/10/08: Explain "identifies" in RFC 2396.

    RF: The current draft expires this week...I'd better do it...please continue.

DO
  1. Completed Action DO/TBL 2003/11/15: Produce new text for a small subsection 1.2.4 (or perhaps for 1.2.1)

    [TBL not satisfied with how text incorporated; see below]

  2. Action DO 2003/11/15: Point WSDL WG to resolution of issue 6.
  3. Action DO 2003/11/15: 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.

    MOVE TO ISSUES LIST.

TBL
  1. Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about extensibility related to "when to tunnel".

    MOVE TO ISSUES LIST.

DC
  1. Action DC 2003/11/15: Follow up on KeepPOSTRecords with Janet Daly on how to raise awareness of this point (which is in CUAP).
SW
  1. Completed action SW 2003/11/15: Verify that "agent" is used consistently in the document and makes sense as both people and software. (Done)

2.2.2 Comments on 3 December 2003 Draft

3 Dec Editor's Draft of Arch Doc (changes, diff)

timbl
q+ re 1.2.2
Ian
SW: I'm happy with QName text modulo minor editorial.
Norm
Rewrite for "language extension":
Language extension: one language is an extension of a second language if and only if the second is a language subset of the first (thus, the extension is a superset). "Extensibility" is the property of a language that allows extensions to be created. The original language design can accomplish extensibility by defining how implementations must handle unknown extensions--for example, that they be ignored (in some way) or should be considered errors.
timbl
q+ to mention that 1.2.2 is not satisfactory and meaning is different from that in the text Dave and I made in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20031111/tim
Norm
In the URI examples, the OASIS URN example isn't valid according to the OASIS URN spec. Suggest: urn:oasis:names:tc:entity:xmlns:xml:catalog
Ian
PC: I would have liked stronger language in 1.1.2, but can live with IJ handling changes for LC.
SW: I'd +1 abstract
TB has already +1 abstract
Zakim
DanCon, you wanted to suggest that the tag's decision to delegate ext/vers to IJ/TBL/DO has timed out
Ian
DC: Extensibility/versioning stuff is back to the group now.
Zakim
timbl, you wanted to mention that 1.2.2 is not satisfactory and meaning is different from that in the text Dave and I made in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20031111/tim
Ian
TBL: DO and I defined extensibility as meaning there's a provision regarding forward compatibility.
IJ: I Propose to work with TBL to get his/DO text into doc; I just need to make it fit with doc.
NW: I'm not thrilled with current wording in 3 Dec draft. I just sent some grammatical corrections in this section; if accepted I'll bite my tongue. I propose an alternative re: URN
timbl
timbl has the same problem with Norm's rewrite
Roy
See the Bristol IRC notes for my wording on extensibility
Norm
timbl, i tried only to fix the grammatical errors, not rewrite it
timbl
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20031111/tim
Ian
[Review of TBL language in 1.2.2]
"Clearly, an extension language is better than an incompatible language, but in practice greater compatability is needed. Ideally, an instance of the superset language, in many cases can be safely and usefully processed as though it were in the subset language. Extensability the property of a langauge that allows this. The original language design can accomplish extensability by defining, for predicable unknown extensions, the handling by implementations -- for example that they be ignored (in some way) or should be considered errors."
Ian
In 3 dec draft, there is this text: "Clearly, creating an extension language is better for interoperability than creating an incompatible language. In practice, even greater interoperability is required. Ideally, it should be possible to interpret many instances of the extension language as though the were instances of the subset language."
DanCon
+1 to "Clearly, an extension language is better ..." para
Norm
Not until its grammatically correct
DanCon
I'd be happy to delegate to timbl, norm, and Ian
Ian
NW: Not sure I agree with extensibility as TBL defined.
Resolved to extend meeting 30 minutes
DanCon
DanCon is here until we're decided to go last call
TBray
TBray is with Dan
Ian
SW: Who would object to extensibility text in 3 Dec draft.
TBL: I'm currently objecting.
DanCon
I'd like to address timbl's objection
Ian
TBL: We say that HTML is extensibility since there's a convention to ignore unknown tags.
Norm
Does this text work for Ian and TimBL?
"Clearly, an extension language is better than an incompatible language, but in practice greater compatability is desirable. Ideally, many instances of the superset language can be safely and usefully processed as though they were in the subset language. Languages that exhibit this property are extensible. The original language design can encourage extensibility by defining how implementations must handle unknown extensions--for example, that they be ignored (in some way) or should be considered errors."
Ian
TBL: Key to extensibility is that you can treat instances in superset as though in subset.
Ian
[NW reads his proposal]
timbl
+1
DanCon
I 2nd norm's text
Ian
+1
Stuart
+1
TBray
TBray will not object to any resolution of this issue
Ian
Resolved: Accept NW's proposed text as substitute text in 1.2.2. IJ and TBL must agree on how to include in the document.
SW questions
Stuart
  1. 2.4 URI Schemes: with https: what is the basis for stating "Generic URI equivalence testing no longer works."? - remedy... delete the assertion?
  2. 2.6 Fragment Identifiers: 3rd bullet is *very* wrong. The data format specification details fragId semantics for references *to* instances of 'F' *not* *from* instances of 'F'. I think you could delete the 3rd bullet without harm.
  3. 4.5.5 Qnames in XML: 1st GPN s/indistinguishable./indistinguishable from URIs./
Ian
TBray: On 2.4, this is true. String compare doesn't work anyway.
IJ: I propose to change third bullet to say more something like "Now you have 2 URIs that refer to the same resource, when you should only have had one; and specs don't tell you that they refwer to the same resource."
TBray: Other things I think are problematic: First bullet point.
DanCon
which example?
Ian
2.4 on https; I dont' want to lose the example.
timbl
"Because of the costs" in ....203/
DanCon
I see 10 or 15 example uris in 2.4...ah... because of.. thx
q+ to suggest this is insufficiently reviewed; I'd need some time to agree to this
Ian
Proposal: Lose first bullet.
timbl
"Now you have 2 URIs that refer to the same resource, when you should only have had one; and specs don't tell you that they refwer to the same resource"
Ian
Proposed change to third bullet: The fact that a resoruce has access control does not change the nature of the resource. This scheme causes authors to use two URis for the same resource where only one was required, and specs don't let agents determine that the two refer to the same resource.
TBL Proposal: remove the entire example "The https....to end of bulleted list"
DanCon
I concur with removal
TBray
+1
Ian
IJ can live with that.
timbl
shames += 2.4
Ian
TBray: I think IJ is right that this is valuable but undercooked.
Resolved to accepted TBL's proposal.
DanCon
yes, with regret, we are resolved
timbl
I agree that it is valuable but undercooked.
TBray
2.6 Fragment Identifiers: 3rd bullet is *very* wrong. The data format specification details fragId semantics for references *to* instances of 'F' *not* *from* instances of 'F'. I think you could delete the 3rd bullet without harm.
DanCon
q+ to say huh? Ian was actioned to replace U/R with nadia/oxaca
Ian
Dan, I made those changes above, in the story.
TBray
currently: " If URI "U" identifies primary resource "R", and
" a representation of "R" is in the data format "F", and
" the data format specification for "F" specifies that fragment identifiers in instances of "F" identify secondary resources, then
DanCon
DanCon isn't following
TBray
" a URI for the secondary resource identified within an instance of "F" by fragment identifier "fragid" is "U#fragid".
Roy
I agree with TBL * DanCon wonders what tbl said that roy agrees with
oops -- buffer delay -- it was regarding 2.4 https
DanCon
odd... I thought "secondary resource" was going away
Chris
I thought we agreed to take out the "F" U" etc
Ian
I added the stuff requested by tag to story at beginning of section.
DanCon
3rd para? you mean 3rd bullet, timbl?
TBray
yes, he does
Ian
TBL: there's a missing piece - when the representation R is interpreted according to F, and within it there is a fragid fragi (which identifies a secondary resource S), then the URI for S is U#fragid. Change variables as follows: s/F/L, s/fragid/F
Action TBL/IJ/SW: Fix text in 2.6
TBray: Please email changes to the list.
[Agreed]

2.2.3 Decision to go to Last Call

Ian
SW: Who supports the publication of 3 Dec modulo agreed changes and what we've said?
timbl
paul: yes
timbl
yes
Chris
yes
TBray
Yes
Norm
Yes
Ian
Yes
Stuart
yes
DanCon
yes, where "those contingencies we discussed" invove Jacobs, Williams, and Berners-Lee
timbl
RESOLVED: To publish as last call modulo the agreed changes and contingencies invoving Jacobs, Williams, and Berners-Lee

Note: After the meeting officially adjourned, both Roy Fielding and David Orchard indicated their support for publishing a Last Call document.


The TAG does not expect to cover these issues

2.3 Review of 3023-related actions

  1. Action CL 2003/10/27: Draft XML mime type thingy with Murata-san

2.4 Findings

See also TAG findings home page.

2.4.1 Expected new findings


Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2003/12/06 15:42:48 $