W3C | TAG | Previous: 23 Jun teleconference | Next: 7 July 2003 teleconf

Agenda for 30 June 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 (15min)

1. Confirm Chair (SW), Scribe (IJ). Regrets: DO, PC. Possible regrets: NW, RF
2. Accept minutes of 30 Jun teleconference?
3. Accept this agenda?
4. Next meeting: 7 July?
5. Next meeting with Voice WG?
6. Proposed three-week summer break: No meeting 18 Aug, 25 Aug, 1 Sep

2. Technical (75 mins)

2.1 Architecture document (10 minutes)

27 June 2003 Working Draft of Arch Doc published.

1. Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 5. Section 5 is expected to be short.
2. Action DO 2003/06/02: Write up a couple of paragraphs on extensibility for section 4.
3. Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of "Conversations and State" into section to be produced by RF.
4. Action PC 2003/06/16: Send second draft of AC announcement regarding TAG's last call expectations/thoughts and relation to AC meeting feedback.

2.2 Findings (20 mins)

See also: findings.

Next steps on these findings:

• Client handling of MIME headers; see summary of comments.
  1. Action SW 2003/06/23: Talk to Voice Browser WG about proposed text, then bring back to TAG.
  2. Completed action IJ 2003/06/16: Add to draft finding discussion about servers not guessing header information (e.g., charset). Completed in 25 June draft of finding.
  3. Completed aaction IJ 2003/06/23: Revise finding based on discussion of 23 June TAG teleconf. (Done)
  4. Next steps for this finding?
• How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD?

The TAG does not expect to discuss the following at this meeting:

• URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET and POST; see summary of comments. See also comments from Larry Masinter.
  • whenToUseGet-7
    • Next step for revised draft finding?
    • Action IJ 2003/06/23: Incorporate a sentence about scope based on LM comments.
• Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a draft finding on content/presentation.
• Action SW 2003/06/02: Continue work on and make available a draft finding related to the opacity of URIs.
• Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn TB apple story into a finding.

2.3 Issues the TAG intends to discuss (45 mins)

The TAG expects to do a walk-through of the open and pending issues in order to determine:

1. Is this issue nearly closed?
2. Do we want to close this issue before going to last call?
3. Do we want to discuss this issue at the face-to-face meeting?

• URIEquivalence-15
  • SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where Tim Bray text has been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this issue to pending state.
• HTTPSubstrate-16
  • Action RF 2003/02/06: Write a response to IESG asking whether the Web services example in the SOAP 1.2 primer is intended to be excluded from RFC 3205
  • See message from Larry Masinter w.r.t. Web services.
• errorHandling-20
  • Action CL 2003/02/06: Write a draft finding on the topic of (1) early/late detection of errors (2) late/early binding (3) robustness (4) definition of errors (5) recovery once error has been signaled. Due first week of March.
• xlinkScope-23
  • Status report?
  • See draft, and SW message to CG chairs.
• contentTypeOverride-24
  • Next step on finding "Client handling of MIME headers"
  • Speech Recognition Grammar Specification Version 1.0, section 2.2.2 External Reference by URI
  • Completed action TB 2003/06/23: Ask www-tag for info about security whole related to contentTypeOverride.
  • Completed action IJ 2003/06/23: Update finding based on comments from 16, 23 June teleconfs. (done)
• contentPresentation-26
  • Action CL 2003/02/06: Create a draft finding in this space. Due 3 March.
• IRIEverywhere-27
  • Action CL 2003/04/07: Revised position statement on use of IRIs. CL says to expect this by 21 April.
  • Action TBL 2003/04/28: Explain how existing specifications that handle IRIs are inconsistent. TBL draft not yet available on www-tag.
  • See TB'sproposed step forward on IRI 27.
• fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML.
  1. Connection to content negotiation?
  2. Connection to opacity of URIs?
  3. No actions associated / no owner.
• binaryXML-30
  • Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on adding to survey.
  • Next steps to finding? See summary from Chris.
• metadataInURI-31
  • Action SW 2003/02/06: Draft finding for this one. See SW proposal
  • See also TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI schemes instead of headers
• xmlIDSemantics-32
  • See Chris Lilley draft finding.
    Action NW 2003/05/05: Point Core WG to CL finding once made public.
• mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
• xmlFunctions-34
  • Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to XML Core work. See email from TimBL capturing some of the issues.
• RDFinXHTML-35
• siteData-36
  • Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36
• abstractComponentRefs-37
  • See issue description from David Orchard. Next steps?
  • Action DO 2003/06/23: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask them for their analysis.
• putMediaType-38

2.4 New issues?

The TAG does not expect to discuss new issues at this meeting.

1. Summary from Stuart

2.5 Issues that have associated action items

• rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
  • Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema desideratum (RQ-23).
• namespaceDocument-8
  • Action TB 2003/04/07: Prepare RDDL Note. Include in status section that there is TAG consensus that RDDL is a suitable format for representations of an XML namespace. Clean up messy section 4 of RDDL draft and investigate and publish a canonical mapping to RDF. See TB's 1 June version.
  • Action PC 2003/04/07: Prepare finding to answer this issue, pointing to the RDDL Note. See comments from Paul regarding TB theses.
  • Refer to draft TAG opinion from Tim Brayon the use of URNs for namespace names.
    • RF: Folks assume that because the specs say so, URNs will be persisitent. But persistence is a function of institutional commitment and frequency of use.
• uriMediaType-9
  • IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft (see email from Chris Lilley).What's required to close this issue?
  • Action CL 2003/05/05: Propose CL's three changes to registration process to Ned Freed. [What forum?]

3. Other actions

• Action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. IJ and PLH making substantial progress on this; hope to have something to show in May.