W3C | TAG | Previous: 13 Jan teleconf | Next: 27 Jan 2003 teleconf

Agenda for 20 Jan 2003 TAG teleconference

Nearby: Teleconference details issues list www-tag archive

Note: The Chair does not expect the agenda to change after close of business (Boston time) Thursday of this week.

1. Administrative (20min)

  1. Confirm Chair (SW) and Scribe (IJ).
  2. Accept 13 Jan minutes?
  3. Accept this agenda?
  4. Next meeting: 27 Jan?

1.1 Meeting planning

2. Technical (70min)

2.1 Findings in progress, architecture document

See also: findings.

  1. Findings in progress:
    1. deepLinking-25
      1. Action TB 2002/09/09: Revise "Deep Linking" in light of 9 Sep minutes.
    2. URIEquivalence-15
      1. TB's "How to Compare Uniform Resource Identifiers" draft finding.
      2. Completed Action DC: DC review of this finding.
  2. 6 Dec 2002 Editor's Draft of Arch Doc:
    1. Next TR page draft? IJ proposes after ftf meeting.
    2. Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3 based on resolutions of 18 Nov 2002 ftf meeting.
    3. Complete review of TBs proposed principles CP9, CP10 and CP11

2.2 Priority issues

  1. xlinkScope-23
    1. Summary of 16 Jan special teleconference (TAG-only).
  2. IRIEverywhere-27
    1. Action MD and CL 2002/11/18: Write up text about IRIEverywhere-27 for spec writers to include in their spec.
    2. Action CL 2002/11/18: Write up finding for IRIEverywhere-27 (from TB and TBL, a/b/c), to include MD's text.
  3. binaryXML-30
    1. Action CL 2002/12/02: Write up problem statement about binary XML; send to www-tag.
  4. xmlProfiles-29
    1. See email from Chris on options for ID
    2. See email from NW (TAG-only) on ID attributes.
    3. See comments from Paul Grosso to treat xml:id as separate spec.
    4. Completed action NW 2003/01/06: Write up a second draft of the TAG position on XML subsetting based on original proposal. (Done).
  5. namespaceDocument-8
    1. Action PC, TB 2003/01/13: Write up a Working Draft that recommends a data format for namespace docs (not compulsory) and that such a document should follow the Rec track process. The initial content of the document should be taken from the RDDL challenge proposals; they are isomorphic in tecnical content. Please include drawbacks in the draft.
    2. Please read NW summary of the following proposals:
      1. RDDL Proposal from Tim Bray.
      2. RDDL Proposal from Chris Wilper
      3. RDDL Proposal from TBL
      4. RDDL Proposal from Jonathan Borden
      5. RDDL Proposal from Micah Dubinko
      6. RDDL Proposal from Sandro Hawke
      7. See also proposal from Garrett Wilson
  6. fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML.
    1. Connection to content negotiation?
    2. Connection to opacity of URIs?

Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2003/01/20 10:32:22 $