W3C | TAG | Previous:30 Aug | Next: 16 Sep

Minutes of 09 September 2002 TAG teleconference

Nearby: Teleconference details issues list www-tag archive

Raw minutes prepared by NW:

Attending: DavidO, TimBL, TBray, StuartW, PaulC, DanC, NormW
Regrets: RoyF, IanJ, ChrisL

Summary of actions:

1. DC to summarize comments on arch document as input to f2f
2. SW to discuss this with IJ and see what might work best
3. DC to get J Reagle to read "Deep Linking"
4. TBray to take these minutes into consideration and revise his document
5. PC to review IJ's work to see if he believes the action is finished
6. DC to write up his alternate view of the table
7. TBray to send this message to tag

*Raw* IRC log:

<Norm>	NW agrees to scribe
<Norm>	Regrets: RF, IJ, CL
<Norm>	1.3: Minutes of 30 Aug accepted w/o comment
<Norm>	SW: Adds item 6 to discuss upcoming f2f
*	DanCon wonders if anybody's in *favor* of approving the 30Aug minutes... presumes Stuart read them...
*	DanCon re-scans, recognized the minutes as OK
<DanCon>	TAG and the Web's Architecture
<DanCon>	by Kendall Grant Clark
<DanCon>	September 04, 2002
<DanCon>	http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/09/04/tag-principles.html
<Norm>	TBray points us to http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/09/04/tag-principles.html
<DanCon>	(It's a pretty friendly review... " Let us dispense with inevitabilities first: as a first public draft, there are sentences and words missing, infelicities of expression, and various rough spots where a good deal of sentence and phrase-level work remain to be done. ")
<Norm>	1.5 Next meeting: regrets IJ
<Norm>	Next meeting = 16 Sep
<DanCon>	I plan to be on a plan at least part of 16Sep
*	Norm agrees to put the agenda for 16 Sep in place if SW sends it
<Norm>	1.6: F2F Agenda
<Norm>	Two days divided into 4 segments each: 2 morning, 2 afternoon
<DanCon>	my 16Sep itinerary says I won't be here for a 3pET meeting.
<Norm>	1 day on arch doc, 1 day on findings
*	Norm wonders if Stuart is reading something
*	DanCon gets the feeling Stu is reading from something... can anybody else see what he's reading from?
<Norm>	http://www.w3.org/2002/09/24-tag-agenda
<Norm>	PC: spend time talking about AB meeting
<Norm>	SW: during first session
<DanCon>	http://www.w3.org/2002/09/24-tag-agenda
<Norm>	TB: reserve f2f for deep technical matters that need a whiteboard
<Norm>	SW: goal of closing httpRange-14 as best we can
*	DanCon notes "No breakfasts planned at the meeting." ouch.
*	Norm agrees to buy DanCon coffee and a bagel :-)
<Norm>	TB: vote for your favorite issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Sep/0017.html
<Norm>	TB: take issues in highest-priority order only
<Norm>	DC: yes, please
<Norm>	TB: maybe we can continue to ignore issues that we're currently ignoring if no one is screaming about them
*	Zakim sees DanCon on the speaker queue
<Norm>	ACTION: DC to summarize comments on arch document as input to f2f
*	RRSAgent records action 2
*	Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
<Norm>	PC: partial regrets for f2f: Wednesday 9-11am.
<Norm>	__1.2 Completed actions_________________________________
<Norm>	TB: to what extent are findings mutable? do we need a policy?
<Norm>	SW: if we're going to announce fingings, we should edit them on the side and we should supercede them explicitly
<Norm>	DC: i thought IJ's changes were the results of a TAG decision
<Norm>	SW: I would have thought we'd get to see it before it was edited over top of the finding
<Norm>	PC: correcting history in-place is likely to be problematic as these findings are likely to be quoted by others
<Norm>	Perhaps version numbers will be sufficient, rather than the previous-version list
<DanCon>	"This version includes changes that have not yet been approved by the TAG regarding (1) registration requirements and (2) charset header information.
<DanCon>	"
<Norm>	PC: any time we say something it's being taken as gospel and either we have believers or disbelievers
<Norm>	PC: When the tag speaks, people notice.
<Norm>	DO: This is good, but it means we have to think about the impact of our decisions
<Norm>	TB: Can we get consensus for version numbers?
<Norm>	DC: How long are these going to be around? I expect them to go away in 18 months
*	Zakim sees Norm on the speaker queue
<Norm>	PC: it's going to be odd to have the architecture document drafts pointing to findings that are "post dated" wrt the arch doc
<DanCon>	old versions are not done the /TR/ way for "everything else".
<Norm>	NW: I think we should just go with the existing scheme of maintaining old versions
<DanCon>	keeping the old versions available is the exception.
*	Norm hadn't realized that, I guess
<Norm>	PC, TB: Ok.
<Norm>	DC, TBL: abstain, 
<Norm>	ACTION: SW to discuss this with IJ and see what might work best
*	RRSAgent records action 3
<Norm>  DC: reports he got one volunteer to help with the IETF/HTTP URI stuff and
        is working on something
<Norm>	__2. Technical ____________________
<Norm>	TB: deepLinking: http://www.textuality.com/tag/DeepLinking.html
<Norm>	Discussion of arguments about social stuff in architecture document
<Norm>	ACTION: DC to get J Reagle to read "Deep Linking"
*	RRSAgent records action 4
<Norm>	TBL: if it had a thesis, it wasn't obvious enough from a quick reading
<Norm>	SW: is there a sound-bite principle?
*	Zakim sees DanCon on the speaker queue
<Norm>	DC: soundbite: to make a link is to refer to something and it's generally accepted that you can refer to any written work
<Norm>	DC: therefore it should be acceptable to make a link to anything
*	Zakim sees DanCon, Timmit on the speaker queue
<Norm>	DC: laws about links should be similar to laws about other things: you can't lie about it, etc. It should be like distributing a piece of paper that says something
*	Zakim sees DanCon, Timmit, TBray on the speaker queue
<Stuart>	ack DanCon
<Zakim>	DanCon, you wanted to offer a soundbite
*	Zakim sees Timmit, TBray on the speaker queue
<DanCon>	Links and Law: Myths http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.html
<Norm>	TBL: making hyperlinks illegal is fundamentally crippling the web.
-->	PaulC (~pcotton@tide09.microsoft.com) has joined #tagmem
<Norm>	TBL: it's not a question of policy in general, it's a question of what the meaning of a link is
*	Zakim sees Timmit, TBray, PaulC on the speaker queue
<Norm>	TBL: no policy person has ever disputed the right to make a reference. 
<Stuart>	ack Timmit
*	Zakim sees TBray, PaulC on the speaker queue
*	Norm assures TBray he's tried to capture everything :-)
<Stuart>	ack TBray
*	Zakim sees PaulC on the speaker queue
<Norm>	TBray: not looking for a soundbite, looking to help policy makers
<Stuart>	ack PaulC
*	Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
<Norm>	PC: regularly ping's Henrick for the information; still waiting for completion
<Norm>	PC: Henrik has not actually been able to track down the ruling
<Norm>	PC: from Henrik: there have been similar rulings: one in Germany and one in ??? that went the other way
<Norm>	PC: the issue seems to be one of ownership of information in databases. Judges are decided one way or another
<Norm>	PC: Danes are going to start a discussion in the EU about this
<Norm>	s/???/Netherlands(Holland)/
<Norm>	PC: Agrees with TBray, having comentary here might help push judges and policy makers in the right direction
<Norm>	TBL: why wouldn't it go in the architecture document?
<Norm>	TB: the arch doc is aimed at spec writers and technologies; it would never cross their minds to forbid the exchange of a URI
<Norm>	ACTION: TBray to take these minutes into consideration and revise his document
*	RRSAgent records action 5
<Norm>	__I2.3.1.2: nternet Media Type registration, consistency of use________
<Norm>	SW: there's been some progress on this issue
<Norm>	SW: does this change/close RFC2032Charset-21?
<Norm>	TBray: seen rumblings from Cone (author of 3023) that maybe 3023 should be revised
*	DanCon got lost somehow...
*	DanCon wonders where we are in the agenda
*	Norm to timmit: please that URI?
*	Norm tells DanCon: Internet Media Type registration
<Norm>	SW: has IJ done is action and are we finished
<Norm>	PC: I have an open action, don't I?
<Norm>	TBray: no, we think that was subsumed by text that ??? wrote for us
<Norm>	DC: IJ claims to have completed his action to ping DC: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0018.html
<Norm>	s/DC/PC
<Norm>	s/ping DC/ping PC/
<Norm>	PC: perplexed about open issue.
<DanCon>	suggestion for the chair: ask if anybody's willing to support http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime in its current form: $Revision: 1.1 $
<Norm>	ACTION: PC to review IJ's work to see if he believes the action is finished
*	RRSAgent records action 6
<Norm>	SW: hopefully PC can report that finished next week to avoid lengthy discussion
<Norm>	TBray: at the next IETF, they will be taking up the question of starting another URI WG
<Norm>	TBray: this is orthogonal to the revision of the RFC
<Norm>	TBray: Masinter thinks they should to prevent the W3C from running off to restate what a URI is
<DanCon>	"    55th IETF Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia
<DanCon>	         (November 17-21, 2002)" -- http://www.ietf.org/
<Norm>	TBray: Masinter: rejiggering the BNF to give all these things names is non-controversial
-->	DaveO (~dorchard@ekgj2138y129i.bc.hsia.telus.net) has joined #tagmem
<Norm>	TBray: Masinter: if such a group was created, several people with W3C visibility would be on it so we'd have consistency
<DanCon>	# proposed charter items for possible URI working group Larry Masinter (Sat, Jul 20 2002) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2002Jul/0016.html
*	Zakim sees DanCon on the speaker queue
<Norm>	TBray: we observe that the IETF is considering launching a WG and that is going to bear upon the difficulty of syncing our respective definitions of URI
*	Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
<Norm>	TBL: so what's going to happen with URIs?
<Norm>	DC: we were talking about the arch doc; TBray took the floor; we have noted what he told us
<Norm> done
<timmit>	http://www.w3.org/2002/09/uris.html
<Norm> (preceding URI)
*	Zakim sees DanCon on the speaker queue
<Norm>	SW: have you announced this table?
<Norm>	TBL: no, this is the first time
<Norm>	TBLs action is done, time to look at this document
<Norm>	DC: if you need to exchange something that looks like documents and you're willing to rely on DNS, use http:
<Norm>	DC: if you an identifier for your telephone, use tel:
<Norm>	DC: etc.
<Norm>	DC: for mid: use DNS on right hand side and put something ??? on the left hand side. Used for ical objects and so do lots of other things
<Norm>	DC: it makes a certain amount of sense to have a scheme for this convention
<Norm>	DC: this allows you to use old URI schemes more often
<Norm>	DC: my intuition says that you should have a URI scheme for each global mechanism, regardless of what you point to with that scheme
<Norm>	TBray: that sound sensible and we could put it/point to it from the place in the arch doc where we say that you shouldn't use new schemes
<Norm>	TBL: are you saying that we should encourage people to use mid: for all sorts of things?
<Norm>	TBray: i'm not sure, but the repetoire of existing schemes can solve a lot of problems so point to some of those solutions
*	DanCon q+ to say 2 things. "new schemes expensive" not good enough, existing RFCs say mid: points to a mail message
*	Zakim sees DanCon on the speaker queue
<Norm>	DC: where's the cost in "new schemes expensive"?
<Norm>	DC: to take a liberal view of what mid: can be used for runs contrary to what the text of the RFC says
<Norm>	timmit: sorry, I didn't catch that. 
<Norm>	DC: does anyone agree, should I write it up?
<Norm>	NW: I think I agree, I'd like to see it written up
<Norm>	TBL: but how do you classify things? Isn't it going to come down to "use http:?"
<Norm>	DC: yes, you'll use http: for anything that uses a short string with maybe some parameters and returns a document
<DanCon>	* [httpRange-14] range of mid:, tel:, uuid: etc. (Tue, Jul 30 2002) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0339.html
<Norm>	TBray: the table has just been published for the first time, we're not going to take any decisions about what to do with it now. DanC proposed an alternative view of the table that I'd like to see. Can we push back and take this up next week?
<Norm>	ACTION: DC to write up his alternate view of the table
*	RRSAgent records action 7
<Norm>	SW: can we make progress on xlinkScope-23 w/o CL?
<DanCon>	timbl relays regrets on behalf of CL
<Norm>	SW: No.
<Norm>	TBray: did he get feedback from the HTML WG?
<Norm>	Unknown.
<Norm>	TBL: they seem to be having trouble getting around to publishing it because it's going to be controversial
<DanCon>	"# Status of discussions with WSA WG about SOAP/WSDL/GET/Query strings?"
<Norm>	SW: can we spend some time 2.2.4? (yes)
<Norm>	SW: DO is there any update?
<Norm>	(DaveO appears to no longer be on the phone)
<DanCon>	Zakim, who's on the phone?
<Zakim>	On the phone I see TimBL, Stuart, PaulC, DanC, DOrchard, TBray, DavidO
<Norm>	TBray: we poked around and the WSDL issues list now contains an issue on this
<Norm>	TBray: a month or six weeks ago they had an issue number you can point to but they hadn't actually done anything
<Norm>	SW: can you dig out the issue number?
<DanCon>	http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html
<Norm>	DO (resurfaces): yes that was a fair summary
<Norm>	Is this it: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x61
<Norm>	No
<Norm>	(No, it's not.)
<Norm>	TBray: it's R085.
<DanCon>	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0047
<DanCon>	(can't find any issue numbers like 'R085' in WS desc issues list)
<Norm>	TBray: Paul Prescod has been bugging them, but it's no where near the top of their list
<Norm>	DO: the WSDL folks are looking for what's broken in what they've already got
<PaulC>	Here is the actual WSDL issue: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x61
<Norm>	DO: see http-url-replacement in the WSDL spec
<Norm>	DO: Section 4.7
*	Zakim sees DanCon, PaulC on the speaker queue
<timmit>	http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_http:urlReplacement
<Norm>	DanCon: last time I looked at this I thought it was too narrow
<Norm>	Stuart: watch the queue
<--	PaulC (~pcotton@tide09.microsoft.com) has left #tagmem (PaulC)
-->	PaulC (~pcotton@tide09.microsoft.com) has joined #tagmem
*	Zakim sees DanCon, PaulC on the speaker queue
<PaulC>	See http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x61
<Norm>	DO: they want to know what's broken about 4.7.
<Norm>	TBray: so someone using this in visual studio should be able to make this work
<Norm>	DO: they need to look at this wrt to SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2
<Norm>	DO: the primer should include an example
<Norm>	DO: we should leave this open to see if anyone finds any heartburn about it
*	DanCon q+ to ask that the WSDL spec do the 'oft quoted stock quote example' using URL replacement
*	Zakim sees DanCon, PaulC on the speaker queue
*	Norm wonders if that's what PaulC wanted to say or if he still wants to be on the queue
*	Zakim sees DanCon on the speaker queue
<Norm>	TBray: if Dave thinks this isn't sufficiently out in the open then we should say that
<Norm>	DC: spell out an example using WSDL
*	Zakim sees DanCon, PaulC on the speaker queue
<Stuart>	ack  DanCon
<Zakim>	DanCon, you wanted to say 2 things. "new schemes expensive" not good enough, existing RFCs say mid: points to a mail message and to ask that the WSDL spec do the 'oft quoted stock
<Zakim>	... quote example' using URL replacement
*	Zakim sees PaulC on the speaker queue
<Norm>	DO: unless there's something wrong with it, we should just ask them to show an example and be done with it
<PaulC>	WSDL WG has a ton of work to do and they will get to this eventually.  I don't think it the TAGs job to set priority.
*	DanCon q+ to ask about the scope of this urlReplacement thingy
*	Zakim sees PaulC, DanCon on the speaker queue
<DanCon>	it's not our job to set priority, but it's our job to keep paying attention until it's done to our satisfaction.
<Norm>	PC: it's on their list, why do we need to do anything else?
<Norm>	TBray: Paul Prescod has suggested that there may be some technical difficulties here
*	timmit brb
<Norm>	ACTION: TBray to send this message to tag
*	RRSAgent records action 8
<Norm>	DO: they are working on a primer, and I think we should ask them to put the get example in the primer
*	DanCon feels no need to say anything about priority, but thinks it's important to ask any questions they have
<Norm>	DO: we should ask them because we consider it a high priority
*	Zakim sees PaulC, DanCon, TBray on the speaker queue
<Stuart>	ack PaulC
*	Zakim sees DanCon, TBray on the speaker queue
<Norm>	DC: on urlreplacement, I didn't get the impression that you can say that this method is safe
<Norm>	DC: the high-order bit that the message is safe gets lost in the noise
<Norm>	DO: I think you're right, they don't have anything that says that methods are safe
<Norm>	DO: I thought we were asking them to make sure things were gettable
*	timmit back
<Norm>	TBray: the way soap was being structured, essentially any service that was going to use SOAP was vanishing from the web. We asked them to fix that and they did.
<Norm>	TBray: if the WSDL primer came out without this among its prominently featured examples, then I think the TAG would be justified in going after them
<Norm>	TBray: perhaps PC is right, we should wait and see what the primer says. OTOH, if DanCon is right and there's a technical problem, then that's a different issue that we should raise
*	Norm has newfound appreciate for IJ's role as scribe. 90 minutes and my brain is full.
*	timmit has to leave, may call in
<Norm>	SW: I think we've gotten to where we're going to wait and se
<Norm>	s/se/see
<Norm>	TBL: I'm a little concerned, but perhaps we can do it informally
<Norm>	DO: I'll be talking to ???.
<Norm>	TBL: it's also important not to wait six months and then tell them what we think is important
<Norm>	PC: I'll ask Jonathan what the priority of this issue is
<Norm>	Adjourned

Norman Walsh, for the TAG
Last modified: $Date: 2002/09/11 16:37:56 $