W3C | TAG | Previous:26 Aug | Next: 9 Sep

Minutes of 30 August 2002 TAG teleconference

Nearby: Teleconference details issues list www-tag archive

1. Administrative

  1. Roll call: NW (Chair), TB, CL, DC, IJ, DO (partial). Regrets: TBL, PC, SW, RF
  2. Accepted 26 Aug minutes
  3. Accepted this agenda
  4. Next meeting: 9 Sep. Regrets: IJ, possibly CL.

1.2 Completed actions confirmed

  1. Action IJ 2002/07/08: Produce WD of Arch Doc. Harvest from DanC's URI FAQ. Deadline 30 August. Done: See 30 August draft.
  2. Arch doc actions from 26 August:
    1. All resolutions taken into account.
    2. Action IJ and NW: Work on this footnote text. Foot note deleted.
    3. Action IJ: Tweak this text to reflect TB and RF comments.
    4. Action IJ: Talk to Janet about press release issue. No press release.
    5. Action DC: Get another w3m member to approve short name (since first public WD): webarch
  3. Action IJ: Update issues list w.r.t. closing augmentedInfoset-22
  4. Action IJ: Announce new issue contentPresentation-26.

2. Technical issues

  1. Comments on Architecture Document
  2. xlinkScope-23
  3. deepLinking-25
  4. uriMediaType-9
  5. URIEquivalence-15
  6. Postponed

2.1 Comments on Architecture Document

The TAG is happy about the publication of the 30 August draft of the Architecture Document.


DC: Easy or hard to decided to publish?
NW: I was comfortable.
TB: Polish has improved intensely.
Architectural Principles of the World Wide Web
W3C Working Draft 30 August 2002
If anybody comes up with speaking points, please share them.
[Press issues]
IJ: I think Janet Daly will be happy if TB alerts the press.
CL: I would be pleased.
IJ: What pieces in section 2 are sorely missing?
TB: I think over next few meetings, I think arch doc improvements should be high priority. I would focus on section 3 next.
NW: Focus on issues pre-ftf, then new text after tag ftf meeting.
TB: I think sections shouldn't be here unless they contain principles.
^hmm... interesting idea
"9. Do not use unregistered URI schemes:" looks like a good practice thingy more than a principle.
IJ: Not addition of good practice note. May also justify a section.
"When one expects to interact with a resource" <- stilted. I hope we can do away with that sort of language.
IJ: Also, sections exist where there are issues.
NW: 2.2.3 linked to frag ids.
CL: Frag ids halfway between ids and formats.
TB: 2.2.3 suggests a good practice note: "Be careful about using frag ids in the following situations."
"2.6. Some generalities about absolute URI references"
IJ: I'm not sure 2.6 will still be around, in the end, but it's kind of handy, and I'm not sure where that material is covered elsewhere yet.
IJ: I think 2.6 might be exploded. But I think it's a useful FAQ..
TB: Yes, I think it's correct to leave here for now, until we figure it out.
IJ: Is there something major missing in section 2? Please speak up soon if so.

2.2 xlinkScope-23

See issue xlinkScope-23


TB: See may comments on traffic on xml-dev on this issue.
hm... s/Recently Published Working Drafts/Working Drafts this Month/
(the "Recently Published" words at the start of headings makes it hard to navigate the /TR/ page)
[Some discussion of hlink specification from HTML WG.]
TB: I think being a linking schema language is a useful way to think about hlink
NW: Difficult to have discussions on this draft since not yet published.
CL: I think the TAG should request that the HTML WG publish this.
DC: I nominate CL to ask them.
Resolved: to encourage HTML WG to publish their recent work related to linking.
Action CL: Request that this be done (through HTML CG, WG, or whatever works)

2.3 deepLinking-25

See issue deepLinking-25


DC: Joseph Reagle now in the loop; see message from Joseph.
TB: He debunks the notion that we are wasting our time talking about it.
NW: I think that we would agree that the web arch would be broken if you had to ask for permission before creating a link.
DC: It's not a good model for human communication.
TB: The Web arch includes sufficient infrastructure that, if you want to establish access control, there is a good and automated way to use that (per spec), and doing so is fine.
DC: If you put a sign on your store "Don't come in after 8pm" without a lock, you would be silly.
TB: Publication of a URI without access control is an invitation to dereference.
CL: Also, confusion between publication of content and how it's used. How I use material is relevant.
DC: Someone is committing fraud if they change the referrer field value.
TB: I might be inclined to go after someone in court.
IJ: Sounds like TB perilously on the edge of a finding...
DC: Everything we do is related to public policy.
CL: There is also the W3C T&S Domain.
DO: Go for it TB!
CL: I have a concern: Suppose I have a UA that takes note of information about a page, and stores it in a bookmark. And the UA knows that if it sends a referrer value, it will get the desired content.
DC: Fraud is closely related to intent. The principle is that links are like citations. I can talk about anybody's stuff.
TB: I agree.
DC: Misrepresentation is another story (e.g., copyright infringement).
CL: But framing may be used for purposes other than deception.
TB: The court enters for edge cases. That's appropriate. You have a trial when I think you are damaging my interests.
DC: Fair use enters here (you can quote 10% but not all; there's reams of law in this area).
TB: It's unequivocally the case that I can publish a document that says "The dissertation published here is junk."
DC: Publishing on the Web is not much different than publishing on paper. Not identical, but very analogous.
CL: Example of TB's "Annotated XML 1.0".
TB: There are two frames - spec at top and commentary on the right.
DC: It created a wrinkle in our policy: we now say this was done with permission.

Action TB: Draft a finding for deepLinking-25.

2.4 uriMediaType-9

See issue uriMediaType-9

  1. uriMediaType-9: Status of negotiation with IETF? See message from DanC.

DC: We said we wanted IANA to make available stable URIs for media types. The way you ask the IETF something is to write an Internet draft.: I wrote to www-tag and then got Mark Baker's attention.

Action DC to write draft. Deadline, 30 Sep

2.5 URIEquivalence-15

See issue URIEquivalence-15


Architecture document, "2.2.1. Comparison of identifiers" mentions URIEquivalence-15. Suggestion: ask Martin Duerst to review section 2.2.
TB: Martin says you have no hope but a hard line (see Martin's email). Whether %7e = %7E in all cases is a slippery slope. I thought we could retroactively assert that post-normalization affects escapes, but I don't think we can.
DC: I want people to copy paste URIs as is, and question any changes.
TB: I would like I18N WG to should "Always use lower case." There's a contradiction between the RFC and the namespaces spec.
DC: Clear to me that we need to say loudly: "If you mean the same thing, say it the same way!": I am willing to redraft 2.2.1.
Action DC: Redraft 2.2.1.
TB: I don't think we can sweep away apparent contradiction with HTTP URIs. Avoid "byte" and "binary".
DC: Use "characters".
TB: No, compare code points.
If you know the characters are encoded in US-ASCII, you can compare bytes, for example.
and you can generalize for all other character encoding schemes, including, e.g. EBCDIC.
IJ: In the redraft, can we work in proposals on URIEquivalence-15, notably re: good practice?
Action CL: I will ask Martin for suggestions for good practice regarding URI canonicalization issues, such as %7E v. &7e and suggested use of lower case.

2.6 Postponed

  1. httpRange-14: Need to make progress here to advance in Arch Document.
  2. RFC3023Charset-21:
    1. Chris sent information to www-tag. What is necessary to close this issue?
    2. Action IJ 2002/09/26: Work CL language into "TAG Finding: Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use". Ping PC to let him know (since he has some text to change as well).
  3. Status of discussions with WSA WG about SOAP/WSDL/GET/Query strings?

Findings in progress, architecture document

See also: findings.

  1. Architecture document
    1. Action DC 2002/08/12: Ask www-tag for volunteers to work with TAG (and possibly IETF) on HTTP URI stuff; CRISP. [This action supersedes the previous action: Ask IESG when IETF decided not to use HTTP URIs to name protocols.] Sent. Awaiting reply.
    2. Action TBL: 2002/07/15: Create a table of URI properties.
  2. Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use.

New issues?

Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/08/30 21:04:13 $