W3C | TAG | Previous: 2 Mar ftf meeting | Next: 22 Mar

Minutes of 15 March 2004 TAG teleconference

Nearby: Teleconference details · issues list (handling new issueswww-tag archive

1. Administrative (20min)

  1. Roll call: RF, TBL (Scribe), NW, PC, SW, CL, MJ, DC. Regrets: IJ
  2. The TAG did not yet accept the minutes of the 2 Mar ftf meeting (TAG participants have not yet reviewed).
  3. Accepted this agenda
  4. Resolved next meeting: 22 March. No regrets indicated.
  5. FTF meeting in April or May (c.f online form)?

    Resolved to meet in BOS 12-14 May, subject to consultation with IJ. All agreed except RF who abstained.

1.1 Tim Bray resigning from TAG

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.

2. Technical (70min)

See also open actions by owner and open issues.

2.1 Formal approval of Qname finding

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.

2.2 Internationalization Issues

2.2.1 TAG review of "Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0: Fundamentals"

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.

2.2.2 Status report regarding TAG's URI/IRI issues

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

2.3 Update on namespaceDocument-8

IJ believes that namespaceDocument-8 was not discussed.

2.4 Web Architecture Document Last Call


  1. Last Call issues list (sorted by section)
  2. Annotated version of WebArch
  3. Archive of public-webarch-comments
  4. List of actions by TAG participant
  5. Additional actions
    1. Action IJ 2004/02/09: Incorporate editorial suggestions (see minutes of that meeting for details).

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: Ownership and authority

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.

1.1 Review of open action items related to issues

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.

3. Status report on these findings

See also TAG findings

4. Other action items

Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2007/02/23 11:19:12 $