W3C | TAG | Previous: 6-7 Feb face-to-face | Next: 24 Jan 2003 teleconf

Minutes of 17 Feb 2003 TAG teleconference

Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details issues list www-tag archive

1. Administrative

  1. Roll call: NW (Chair), PC, DO, TB, IJ (Scribe). Regrets: CL, TBL, DC, SW. Missing: RF.
  2. Accepted 6-7 Feb face-to-face minutes.
  3. Accepted this agenda
  4. Next meeting: 24 Feb. Regrets: IJ. Likely agenda items:
    1. Review tech plenary presentations.
    2. New issue on metadata hook?
    3. namespaceDocument-8
  5. Resolved to cancel 3 March meeting as it occurs during week of Tech Plenary.
  6. Following meeting: 10 March.

1.1 Meeting planning

The TAG discussed conflicts on 21 May with the W3C Track.

Action IJ: Start email thread to TAG to suggest alternate May dates of 22 (All day), 23 (Morning), 24 (Morning). DO, TB, PC, NW, IJ can meet those days.

TB, PC, DO, NW, IJ can meet those days in November.

Action IJ: Start separate thread on tag to try to get confirmation of 14-15 November in Japan.

NW confirms that he can meet 21 (afternoon), 22, 23 in Vancouver (resolved at 6-7 Feb face-to-face).

NW: For discussion at next week's meeting.

1.2 Mailing list management

1.3 Other stuff

2. Technical

2.1 New issues?

Postponed since TBL not present. No other new issue proposals noted.

2.2 Issues

  1. deepLinking-25
  2. namespaceDocument-8
  3. binaryXML-30

2.2.1 deepLinking-25

Resolved: Approve revised Deep Linking finding (with IJ changes)

2.2.2 namespaceDocument-8


TB: The document SHOULD include the pros and cons of its approach; that's in the cover email.
NW: What is next step for this document?
TB: Feedback so far has been modest in volume, but very supportive.
PC: For discussion at Tech Plenary.
TB: I'm interested in feedback from TBL (Can he live with this?) and DanC (Can we use existing HTML infrastructure?).
NW: Put on next week's agenda for DC/TBL feedback before plenary.

2.2.3 binaryXML-30

TB: Can we close issue 30?
IJ: No, need a finding.
DO: I think CL text is a survey but not a position. I am pleased that CL included some suggsetions.
TB: I think that what is missing is a discussion of some of the problems:
  1. Do you optimize for case where both parties know vocabulary v. requirement for self-describing data.
  2. Optimize for short or long message case?
  3. Optimize for dense/sparse markup case?
TB: On the face, it seems that it's at least difficult to hit a sweet spot that works well for all cases.
DO: It would be useful to document the decision tree graph.
TB: I don't think people are talking about binhex-ing data.
DO: XML-as-binary v. Binary-in-XML --- are these clearly separable?
TB: I think so There are people who would like to jam multimedia into XML messages who are otherwise perfectly happy with the syntax of XML.
DO: Perhaps there's a fourth axis about including binary info in XML.
TB: I was hoping Schema would provide a lightweight way to include binary info. You have to do a lot of declaration machinery to say that a piece of content is binhexed. What I would add to the survey is solution space. I think W3C shouldn't do anything until there's a proposal that can cover a substantial part of the solution space.
Action TB: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on adding to survey.

2.3 Other issues

2.4 Findings in progress, architecture document

See also: findings.

  1. 6 Feb 2003 Editor's Draft of Arch Doc:
    1. Next TR page draft?
    2. Completed Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3 based on resolutions of 18 Nov 2002 ftf meeting. Done in 6 Feb 2003 Editor's Draft
    3. Action DC 2003/02/06: Attempt a redrafting of 1st para under 2.2.4
    1. Action DC 2003/01/27: write two pages on correct and incorrect application of REST to an actual web page design
    2. Action DO2003/01/27: Please send writings regarding Web services to tag@w3.org. DO grants DC license to cut and paste and put into DC writing.
    3. Action CL 2003/0127: Draft language for arch doc that takes language from internet media type registration, propose for arch doc, include sentiment of TB's second sentence from CP10.
    4. Action TB 2003/01/27: Develop CP11 more: Avoid designing new protocols if you can accomplish what you want with HTTP. DC suggested describing GET/PUT/POST in a para each, then say "if your app looks like that, use HTTP". Proposal from TB to withdraw the proposal.

Ian Jacobs for Norm Walsh and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2003/02/19 19:49:52 $