W3C | TAG | Previous: 15 Dec teleconf | Next: 12 Jan

Minutes of 5 January 2004 TAG teleconference

Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details · issues list (handling new issues)· www-tag archive

1. Administrative (15min)

1. Roll call: SW (Chair), TBL, DC, NW, TB, DO, PC, IJ (Scribe). Regrets: RF. Absent: CL.

   TB noted that he has changed affiliation.

2. Accepted minutes of the 15 Dec teleconf.
3. Accepted this agenda.
4. Next meeting: 12 Jan 2004
5. Upcoming meeting with I18N representatives: 19 Jan 2004.
6. DC reminded the TAG that the next W3C/IETF joint meeting is scheduled for 6 February.

1.1 Video meeting in Feb 2003

1. Action SW/PC 2003/11/10: Explore possibility of TAG videolink TAG distributed meeting in February.

   SW: Not much to report.

1.2 Technical Plenary

1. Continued action SW 2003/11/15: Take to tech plenary committee the TAG's proposal.

[Ian]

SW: The idea of debate around web arch got some favorable response. I need to continue to work on setting up liaisons with other groups.

IJ: I need to work on ftf meeting page; with liaisons.

TBL: I cannot attend ftf meeting in Cannes.

[DanCon]

is isight a possibility?

[Ian]

TBL: I will be working, however. Could attend by video.

[DanCon]

(Stuart, yes, let's do talk about TP liaison foo; I'm interested to help; perhaps right after this call)

1.3 New Year Planning

1. Reflection on 2003; goals for 2004.
2. Face-to-face meeting schedule

[Ian]

[Support for long-term planning from PC, DC, NW]

Action PC: Propose meeting schedule for next 4 (or so) TAG ftf meetings. Due: 12 Jan 2004.

[Goals]

SW: Arch Doc to Rec, close more issues.

DC: We occasionally bump up against QA boundary. We had some gratifying impact within the W3C community (e.g., SOAP, Voice). My goal for 2004 is to see some Web sites changed. Once in a while, people talk about w3c-certified engineers. The advogado model (open source developers) of peer review is interesting to me. I'd like to reproduce that phenomenon around people who build arch-happy Web sites.

TBray: One idea came up at town hall in Philadelphia. I am troubled by the fact that we don't have a conformance section in the Arch Doc. We could produce a Web arch conformance statement template.

[IJ: Check out what UAAG 1.0 does on this front: http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/conformance.html#Conformance ]

TBray: I'd also like to make progress on RDDL and formalizing the notion of a Web site.

PC: I think that my first priority is to get arch doc to Rec. We need to scope out what our next technical work will be beyond that. I'd like to have the current arch doc to Rec and a sketch of next version for Nov 2004 AC meeting.

[DanCon]

(path from http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/ is longer than I'd like)

[Ian]

Action IJ: Add public-webarch-comments to list of mailing lists on TAG home page.

1.4 Process questions

The TAG discussed some proposed changes to the W3C Process Document regarding TAG participation.

2. Technical (75min)

2.1 How close are we to accepting these findings?

See also TAG findings.

• draft finding from NW on QNames on qnames

  NW: I will have a new draft by close of business ET on 7 Jan.

• contentTypeOverride-24: 10 Dec 2003 draft of Client handling of MIME headers

  SW sent comments (1, 2).

  SW: I think that "not ready to go" review.

  IJ: I will have responded to SW's comments by 16 Jan 2004.

2.2 Status report on these findings

• contentPresentation-26: Draft finding: Separation of semantic and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is architecturally sound
• metadataInURI-31

  SW: I'd like to have new version by end of Jan 2004.

• siteData-36

  TB: I will commit to doing my action item by next week.

• abstractComponentRefs-37

  Completed action IJ 2003/11/03: Publish DO's latest draft in finding format (Done)

[Ian]

DO: No change from where we were 2-3 weeks ago. WSDL WG had taken our suggestions to heart. Remaining question about syntax (of frag ids): where to specify this. Question of where the frag id syntax dfns would go.

TBL: Spec should define the frag id sem/syn normatively.

DO: The thought was that since this was raised during RDF review, that it be related to that material. I pushed back on that approach since I think the issue is larger.

DC: Is WSDL planning to register a media type?

DO: I think so

IJ: Did my previous comments make it into a draft?

DO: Yes.

[There was some confusion about the latest draft of this finding, which is dated 30 Oct. DO and IJ to sort this out.]

[Ian]

IJ: It has been my understanding that Martin has the ball on revising this guidebook resource on registering media types.

DC: Yes, he does. Next W3C/IETF meeting scheduled for 6 Feb.

2.3 Issues

Issues list

Issues that are open and that we expect to close by the end of last call:

• rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6

  [Ian]

  IJ: Three open actions.

  TBray: I thought that it was a shared observation of the state of reality (from HT) but not an objection.

  DC: I concur.

  [Review of other actions re: issue 6]

  NW: Even though I proposed on 4 Nov, I am revising based on another action.

  DO has two action items re: issue 6.

  DC: I'd like the WSDL WG to send a LC comment on our spec saying "We are happy with how you handled issue 6."

  [DanCon]

  (I feel some obligation to help DO get that to happen, fyi)

  [Ian]

  DO action: "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."

  DC: I propose to withdraw; this was for LC draft.
  Resolved: Drop DO's action re: section 4.5 text for issue 6.

• [Ian]

  DC: Please continue. I'm counting in the same bucket Mark Baker's request for clarification (re: WSDL).

  [No sense of due date]

  DO action: Ask WSDL WG to look at finding; ask them if marking operations as safe in WSDL is one of their requirements.

  DO: I have completed this action (see email to WSD WG). However, I have not seen an answer to my question. My current understanding is that the req is currently considered out-of-scope. Not sure if it will become in-scope.

  [DanCon]

  (if he's not claiming victory, don't bug him for details)

• URIEquivalence-15

  [Ian]

  Action SW: Track RFC2396bis (version 3) where Tim Bray text has been integrated. Comment within the IETF process.

  SW: There has been an update, I think.

  DC to TBL: Do you know what's being published in your name?

  TBL: I haven't read the latest one.

  DC: Likely to be on the 6 Feb IETF/W3C meeting agenda.

  SW: Version 3 of RFC2396 expired in Dec.

  [DanCon]

  URI CG homepage should have current state http://www.w3.org/2001/12/URI/

  [TBray]

  Version after v 3: http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html

  [timbl]

  redirects to http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html

  [Ian]

  Action TBL: Review RFC2396 bis (current Editor's Draft) in preparation for IETF/W3C coordination meeting 6 Feb.

• errorHandling-20

  Resolved: Close CL's action item for this issue based on Rob Lanphier's reply.

  DC: I'd like Rob to send comments to public-webarch-comments.

• contentTypeOverride-24

2.4 Other action items

• Action RF 2003/10/08: Explain "identifies" in RFC 2396.
• Action DC 2003/11/15: Follow up on KeepPOSTRecords with Janet Daly on how to raise awareness of this point (which is in CUAP).

  DC: Please continue.

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

  DC: I expect the draft xml mime draft to be on IETF/W3C liaison agenda. I hope CL will be there.