W3C | TAG | Previous: 7 June | Next: 21 June

Agenda of 14 June 2004 TAG teleconference

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

1. Administrative

1. Roll call. Regrets: TBL, SW, IJ
2. Accept the minutes of the 7 June teleconf?
3. Accepte this agenda?
4. Next meeting 21 June?
5. Action TBL 2004/05/12: Talk to TB and DO about editor role.

1.1 Meeting schedule

Action TAG 2004/06/07: Send summer regrets to TAG list.

1. Summer meeting schedule? Cancel 5 July?
2. AC meeting rescheduled for 2-3 December. Does this affect whether to hold TAG ftf meeting in November?
3. Ottawa meeting update?
4. 5-7 October Basel meeting update?

1.3 TAG Charter

Action IJ 2004/06/07: Report back on next AB meeting to discuss TAG charter and relation to patent policy.

2. Technical

See also open actions by owner and open issues.

Completed action items:

1. Action IJ 2004/05/24/: Announce the closure of issue URIEquivalence-15. See proposal to drop this action.
2. Request from Chris to confirm that three action items completed.

2.1 xml11Names-46

1. Action NW 2004/06/07: Write up XML 1.1 Question for the TAG. If there are no objections to formulation, forward to the XML CG on behalf of TAG. (Proposed)

2.2 httpRange-14 status

Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document.

2.3 IRI draft status in IETF

The IRI spec has moved on since the TAG's 22 March 2004 discussion. Martin Duerst has sumbitted the 08 draft to the IESG for approval. The concerns expressed in [a] centred around lack of maturity of the spec. and lack of delployment and usage experience.

Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document.

2.4 Web Architecture Document Last Call

See the 8 June 2004 Editor's Draft. Assign reviewers to specific sections?

• Action NW 2004/05/14: Propose text on tradeoffs for section 4.2.2.
• Action CL 2004/05/14: Rewrite story at beginning of 3.3.1. Consider deleting para that follows last sentence third para after story in 3.3.1. "Note also that since dereferencing a URI (e.g., using HTTP) does not involve sending a fragment identifier to a server or other agent, certain access methods (e.g., HTTP PUT, POST, and DELETE) cannot be used to interact with secondary resources."
• Completd Action IJ: Remove the middle bullet from 2.3 (done in 8 June draft).
• Action TBL 2004/06/08: For issue hawke7, ask Sandro for clarification on whether second URI should have "#". Done: Sandro said that the hashes were not the point, but that the point was that in the context of dereferencing, it does matter which URI you use. Note: IJ has removed the paragraph in the 8 June draft.

Resources:

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

The TAG does not expect to discuss issues below this line.

3. Status report on these findings

See also TAG findings

• abstractComponentRefs-37:
  • 30 Oct 2003 draft finding "Abstract Component References"
• contentPresentation-26:
  • 30 June 2003 draft finding "Separation of semantic and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is architecturally sound"
• metadataInURI-31
• siteData-36
  • "There is no such thing as a Web site"

4. Other action items

• Action DC 2003/11/15: Follow up on KeepPOSTRecords with Janet Daly on how to raise awareness of this point (which is in CUAP).
• Action CL 2003/10/27: Draft XML mime type thingy with Murata-san