W3C | TAG | Previous: 19 Apr teleconference | Next: 3 May

Minutes of 26 April 2004 TAG teleconference

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

1. Administrative

  1. Roll call. NW, DC (Scribe), MJ, SW (Chair), TBL, RF, CL, Regrets: IJ, PC
  2. Accepted the minutes of the 29 Mar teleconference
  3. Accepted the minutes of the 19 Apr teleconference
  4. Accepted this agenda, with addition of item 2.4 on Workshop.
  5. Next meeting: 3 May. TBL to Chair. Regrets: NW, SW

1.1 May TAG ftf meeting in Boston

  1. See meeting page
  2. Action NW and IJ 2004/04/19: Work on agenda for ftf meeting.

    [Expected this week]

1.2 May AC meeting in New York

  1. Registration, Agenda
  2. Presentation (17 May, 16:30, for 45 minutes including discussion)
    1. Topics?
      1. Flavor of LC comments? Biggest issues?
    2. Presenters?


SW: except PaulC, the only TAG members planning to attend are W3C team. We need to work on our report. [sketch from agenda]
DC: you could delegate to me and CL, with input from PaulC etc.
TimBL: how about .mobile?
DC: "we've had lots of comments. upside: folks are clearly reading. downside: not easy to address quickly" I don't think we're gonna make all the commentors happy. I'm curious about input from the AC about how much consensus they want to see.
NW: yeah... that could be useful.
SW: like which? DanC: some commentors (Hayes etc.) won't likely be satisfied unless we resolve httpRange-14
CL: [Some comments on the Formats section seemed to relate to the separation of presentation/content; webarch summarises the finding too much and the finding needs revising. I worked on this last week and hope to publish a revised finding soon. Also plan to submit a discussion paper on this as late-breaking to Extreme markup.]
RF: URI spec stuff is news.
... going to last call soon.
CL: workshop on WebApps/CompoundDocs seems relevant to some of our issues. The workshop has been brewing for a while but was earlier called plugins or multinamespaces or various other aspects of the problem.
NW: perhaps we want a TAG position?
TBL: will the workshop presentations be good TAG reading?
CL: there will be the usual position papers
ACTION DanC: prepare TAG presentation for AC

2. Technical (60min)

See also open actions by owner and open issues.

2.1 Top Level Domains used as filters (.xxx, .mobile, etc.)

  1. Action CL 2004/03/29: Send a draft to www-tag explaining why the .mobile proposal is misinformed. If the TAG supports the proposal, send to ICANN on the official mailing list.
  2. Action IJ 2004/03/29: Talk to DJW about sending a proposal to the TAG (focusing on social issues) that the TAG could review and possibly endorse. Progress; I chatted with DJW. We are working on a position statement.


re CL action "Send a draft to www-tag explaining why the .mobile proposal is misinformed. If the TAG supports the proposal, send to ICANN on the official mailing list."
CL: I've been travelling... made some progress... sent something to TimBL...
TimBL: independently, I've been working on something...
... it turns out there are number of reasons why .mobile is harmful... mostly regarding the cost of new TLDs
TimBL: e.g. re all new TDLs: (1) there's an existing market in TLDs. You can, to a certain extent, protect your trademark by buying $tm.com, $tm.net, $tm.org ; .biz and .info bring that up to 5 ...
... and now [the stock has split]
[no, that analogy doesn't work]
... and with each new TLD, the market is disrupted. The speculators grab stuff first-come-first-served
[3? oops]
... and then the market settles out.
TimBL: re .mobile in particular: after researching this, I don't see a clear description of the motivation for this domain...
... sometimes it's put forward as a way to get the mobile phone devices on-board[?] quickly...
... if it's for content-designed-for-mobile-devices, then it's a FLAGRANT violoation of a core principle about device independence. [?]
... can't reuse a link to something when you use it from a different device.
... e.g. you find a map in .mobile, email somebody a link to it, and the recipient, using a 19" display, sees a 2" map.
CL: the harm is in duplicating URIs needlessly
CL: the harm that's done is that it gives the impression that the .mobile stuff is separate from desktop stuff.
... it warps the meaning of the rest of the web, as well as the .mobile part
CL: the best thing about .mobile is to serve as a counterpoint to W3C device indpendence work
DanC_, you wanted to suggest that CL and TimBL send their stuff.
[ discussion of tactics... ]
"New sTLD RFP Application .mobi" http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/mobi.htm
SW: 8.5 million Euro in profit by 2008, says the application (section "Fiscal Information")
TimBL: any new ones should be non-profit. CL: yes, quite

discussion concludes.

2.2 Marking Operations Safe in WSDL

  1. See Email from David Orchard. Any updates regarding get7?
DC: yes, what they've done so far is fine, nifty. But I'd rather the TAG reserved judgement until we see that it's actually used and such.
CL: there's a question of what happens when you take something unsafe and mark it as safe and so on
SW: PROPOSED: thank them for what they've done so far, ask them to explain a bit about what can go wrong, encourage them to put it in the test suite


2.3 Revised Finding "Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use"

  1. See 19 April 2004 "Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use"


DC: I got the impression this was an announcement of something done, not a call for review. oops.
CL: main thing: it got shorter.
(CL, did you say that the stuff that was cut was redundant w.r.t. the webarch doc?)
TBL: an aside, from an AB discussion, we could ask other folks to edit stuff. Any problem with inviting, e.g. Bray or Orchard to edit things?
redundant with http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
several: no, no problem
zakim, who is here?
DanC: if Bray's name is to remain on, I'd like to be sure he's OK with the changes
PROPOSED: to adopt the finding http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0419-mime.html
so RESOLVED, subject to consultation with Tim Bray to see if he wants his name to remain.

2.4 Workshop on Compound Documents


CL: workshop home says it all, pretty much
... we've discussed compound docs...
DC: workshop home doesn't say that the TAG has discussed compound docs
CL: ah... will fix.
"How are they related to Web documents, which are normally static?" -- gurk!
CL: the "web applications" stuff is what particularly motivates multi-namespace docs across the wire, as opposed to converting to .html on the server side
NW: I hope to attend the workshop.

2.5 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).

Actions 2004/03/15 (due 25 March?) to review sections:

NW Review of Section 3


NW's notes on section 3 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Apr/0011.html
DC: [...]
CL: I agree that POST-only things are "on the Web"
I would say all it has to be is referenced from the Web to be on the Web, which also implies having a URI.
I agree with Roy
A resource is on the Web when it has been assigned a URI and is referenced by some other part of the Web; hence, the Web is a graph of referenced resources.
DanC_, you wanted to disagree re "on the web"
CL: then car:car.something is on the web? that reduces the definition of "on the web" to nothing
TBL: I think the common parlance definition of "on the Web" means you can GET a representation of it.
RF: I thought we agreed to speak of the wider web, including semantic web, in this webarch document.
TimBL: the common use is, e.g. "W3C specs and IETF specs are on the web and ISO specs are not"
CL: ISO specs are "on the web" in the sense RF mentioned, since they have isbn: identifiers
RF: yes, one application may be able to get a representation of an isbn:... resource, even though the average client may not
MJ: yes, otherwise, we restrict ourselves to http...
TBL: I think it's counter-productive to go there...
A resource is "on the Web" when it has been assigned a URI that makes the resource accessible to all clients that use the Web. ???
Sounds like a circural definition ...
NW: hmm... maybe strike it after all?
(poll started... interrupted)
A resource is "on the Web" when it has been assigned a URI that makes the resource generally accessable using standard protocols.
So tel: and urn: aren't on the web?
A resource is "on the Web" when it has been assigned a URI that allows one to generally obtain a representation of it using standard protocols.
RF: did you exclude POST-only things on purpose?
TimBL: yes.
DanC_, you wanted to note that we don't have a need for this definition, timbl. it can be deleted without breaking any links.
/me will take the rocky road definition, two scoops please
PROPOSED: to strike the "on the web" note
I object
Carried over my objection.

RESOLVED: to strike the "on the web" note, TimBL objecting.

ACTION NW: respond to the commentor, noting we agreed.

I suggest that we remove it until someone writes an appendix that defines the several variations of "on the Web" depending upon what type of client is being used.
+1 to roy

Issue kopecky2

Issue kopecky2: Reference or Identify?

NW: I think ref/identify is sufficiently clear as is. propose: no text changes.
DC: ok by me
RF: hmm... did this text come from the URI spec?
... if so, does it need updating?
PROPOSED: to close kopecky2 without changes to webarch

RESOLVED to close kopecky2 without changes to webarch. ACTION NW

Issue klyne1

Issue klyne11: Change "will result" to "will necessarily result"

PROPOSED: to add "necessarily" per klyne11
DanC: this looks editorial. NW: but the editor didn't mark it so.

RESOLVED to add "necessarily" per klyne1. ACTION NW

The TAG did not discuss issues below this line.

1.3 Revised TAG Charter (10-15 minutes MAXIMUM)

3. Status report on these findings

See also TAG findings

4. Other action items

Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2004/05/07 19:56:13 $