W3C | TAG | Previous: 2 Mar ftf meeting | Next: 22 Mar
Nearby: Teleconference details · issues list (handling new issues)· www-tag archive
Resolved to meet in BOS 12-14 May, subject to consultation with IJ. All agreed except RF who abstained.
Tim Bray joined the beginning of the meeting and announced that he is resigning from the TAG due to W3C Process constraints on the number of participants from the same Member. The TAG resolved unanimously to thank Tim Bray for his contributions.
See also open actions by owner and open issues.
At the ftf meeting we did not formally approve NW's finding. Proposed to publish the 14 Jan draft as an approved finding using the usual mechanisms.
Stuart: QnameAsId finding - wee have approved this as a finding, but we have not resolved to publish it as a note. I propose we approve it as a finding and leave any question as to publishing on the TR page to another time.
Chris: seconded.
timbl: RESOLVED: we approve it as a finding
timbl: ACTION NW: Publish Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in Content as an approved TAG finding.
See 25 Feb 2004 WD of Charmod Fundamentals
timbl: Chris took on the task of reviewing the Charmod spec; see email from CL.
Chris: I am part way through. We should ask for a week's extention.
Stuart: I'll ask for a 2 week extension.
DanC_: (I owe a review too. sorry, I'm running late)
Chris: I have found one new issue -- mailed just before this meeting started.
timbl: ACTION Stuart: Negotiate an extension of ideally 2 weeks with I18N WG for the review of CharMod.
Chris: (the new issue - On the other hand, I worry that this might encourage people to encode pi or symbol fonts on the ascii range, which is worse than using the PUA! The spec could explicitly discuss this case.
Stuart: In the meeting that Chris and I attended, we asked Martin to report back on their publishing schedules for the IRI draft.
Chris: I had thought that they are in RFC queue - but RFC2396 bis is not in last call yet.
Roy: RFC2396 bis is still in WG not yet LC or RFC.
DanC_: (RFC2396bis last call will be 4 weeks, rather than 2, since there's no WG. I think.)
timbl: ... The IRI draft could go to RFC with a prointer to the RFC stage with normative reference to 2496bis, with instructions to the RFC editor top update teh pointer iff the RFC2396bis spec coems though.
DanC_: hmm... IRI is in the IETF standards process? I despair of being able to track this stuff.
Timbl Notes that that is an interesting procedure.
Roy: It wouldn't become an RFC spec until the normative refs all become RFCs.
Chris: please note my charmod review-in-progress also halt at precisely the IRI issue
Zakim: Chris, you wanted to talk about IRI and to say what I said in email
DanC: This may delay the arch doc past the end of the year, (which was the subject of a bet and a dinner!)
Chris: Many specs have IRIs in already.
DanC: The fundamentals issue should be of stuff which is not at risk.
DanC_: I'm surprised. hmm... gotta study further to see if I find it OK.
Chris: 7 Character Encoding in URI References
Chris: IRI also normative in XMLNamespace 1.1 for example
Stuart: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/webarchWithIssues.html
Chris: the stuff in section 7 is already widely deployed. eg IE6 (5, 4) and Google use this all the time
IJ believes that namespaceDocument-8 was not discussed.
Resources:
timbl: Stuart: I would like people to take on these clusters of comments; see issues list sorted by section.
timbl: DanC: We just pasted the comments into the relevant parts of the spec. Ian did the difficult bit of linking the issue to the anchor.
timbl: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#identifiers-comparison
timbl: DanC: It would be nice to be able to group these if they are one comment. I have not found a lot of inspiration as to what to do next.
timbl: Chris: I volunteer to look at 4 Data Formats
DanC_: yes, timbl, do look at RFC2396bis
* Norm apologizes. Must leave at 16:00 (in 12 min)
* DanC_ is working on a view with editorial stuff in a different color...
* mario would be happy to volunteer for section 4 also if Chris does not mind
Actions (due 25 March?) to review sections:
Norm gives his excuses and leaves the meeting.
Issue pps1, concerning sections 2.2 and 3.4
Chris: ok so he is saying that the weather page does not own the weather.to which we say, correct, but they own their report on the weather. It seems easy to answer - he is just confused between the weather and the report
SW: We talk about URIs being owned, and resources, and making an assigtnment.
timbl: ... we talk about authority and ownership and we are not very clear with respect to URIs or resources
Zakim: Chris, you wanted to say that
Zakim: DanC_, you wanted to say well, we gave it a try, but maybe this isn't good use of our time after all... I'm ok to adjourn, despite my bet with PaulC
Chris: 'ownership' also needs to discuss syndication, and syndicated data as (part of) a resource
I suggest the only way to make this clearer would be a formal description.
Stuart: We will be addressing web arch last call comments. I will need input for next week's agenda.
Stuart will review the agenda of next week on Thursday.
TimBL: Doesn't work for me.
Chris: ok, but we can do tims bit the week after
DanC_: FYI: W3C/MIT moves office Wed 24Mar. LOOK OUT!
timbl: Tim'ls action item for 10 day's time.
The TAG did not discuss issues below this line.
The TAG expects to review the list of open actions by owner and to close any that are obvious to close. TAG participants are encouraged to review this list before the meeting, as well as other action items listed in this agenda.
See also TAG findings