W3C | TAG | Previous: 20 Oct teleconference | Next: 3 Nov 2003 teleconference

Minutes of 27 October 2003 TAG teleconference

Nearby: IRC | Teleconference details issues list (handling new issues) www-tag archive

1. Administrative

  1. Roll call: SW (Chair), DO, DC (Scribe), TBL, NW, CL, RF, PC. Regrets: TB, IJ.
  2. Accepted the minutes of the 20 Oct teleconference
  3. Accepted this agenda
  4. Next meeting: 3 Nov 2003 teleconference. Tentative regrets: PC, NW, TBL.

Upcoming meeting topics:

1.1 TAG update at Nov 2003 AC meeting.

  1. Completd action DO, CL 2003/10/20: Produce draft slides for AC presentation; for discussion at 27 Oct teleconference. (done)


DO reviews AC slide proposal
DO: it was very rewarding comparing the current webarch doc to the one 6 months ago; much more fleshed out.
PC: presentation duration? main message?
DO: I gather our slot is 60min; present for 40 to 55, allow 5 to 20min QA?
PC: I don't see much about our relationship with W3C WGs. In additionI think we should report back to the AC on our decisions re Last Call inreference to the questions we asked at the last AC meeting.
DanCon, you wanted to ask why so much time on readily-available factual material
PC: perhaps figure out some questions and work backward?
DanC: a big question is: the TAG costs a lot; do you want to keep spending the resource that way?
TimBL: what would you say to somebody in the corridoor?
DanC: I found writing up the interaction with the Voice WG rewarding...
DO: I hearw3452W5r'
[scribe needs help or something]
DanC: I don't see any need to tell the AC what's in the document, I guess.
SW: what's the coolest thing? I liked the interaction with voice... hmm...
PC: we've delegated a bunch.
... binary XML Workshop.
No affect on i18n
... bumping into I18N...
... 18n WG wouldn't take any notice
... XML Core ID stuff.
... plus VoiceXML
TimBL: we stirred up RFC3023...
Chris: IANA... media type...
[several]: ... IETF in general
DO: I think it's important to talk about the new text...
... about how we've decided to get to Last Call ASAP, and what we've done about it
DanC: hmm... the bulk of new text suggests to me that we're not headed for Last Call right away
ACTION ChrisL: incorporate input on AC slides and produce another draft. ETA: Weds

1.2 TAG Nov face-to-face meeting agenda

1.3 New issues list deployed

Completed action IJ 2003/02/06: Modify issues list to show that actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. (done)

2. Technical (75min)

  1. Review of 3023-related actions
  2. Review of Architecture Document writing assignments
  3. XML Versioning

2.1 Review of 3023-related actions

Actions 2003/10/08:
- NW to liaise with Paul Grosso and the XML Core WG
- TBL and DC to liaise with the IETF regarding obsoleting RFC 3023.
- TB to talk to authors of 3023 about inclusion as appendix in xml 1.1.
- TBL and DC will talk to the Architecture Domain Lead.
CL 2003/10/20: Draft update to 3023 for review by the TAG (on www-tag).


CL: I took the ball on a new draft, which prompted new input from Murata-san
PC: summary?
CL: deprecate text/xml due to charset foo; revises advice on when to use charset; ...
RFC3023Charset-21: Do all "shoulds" of RFC 3023 section 7.1 apply?

ACTION CL: draft XML mime type thingy with Murata-san. [Previous action thus subsumed.]

2.2 Review of Architecture Document writing assignments

Latest draft is the 1 Oct 2003 WD of the Arch Doc.

  1. Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Write up a paragraph for section 3 on syntax-based interoperability. (done). See also comments from Mike Champion
  2. Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Write a paragraph of rationale for why error handling good in the context of the Web. (done)
  3. Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Propose a revised paragraph to replace the "Furthermore" sentence in section 2.3 (done)
  1. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Add ed note to abstract that the abstract will be rewritten.
  2. Action IJ 2003/10/08: Starting from DO's diagram, create a diagram where the relationships and terms are linked back to the context where defined. Ensure that the relationships are in fact used in the narrative; any gaps identified? With DO, work on term relationship diagram.
  3. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Draft good practice note for 4.4.
  4. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: In 2.4, add story that shows how two classes of error can arise (inconsistency v. no frag id semantics defined). Frame story in terms of secondary resources.
  5. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Split persistency section into two and move http redirection para there, with appropriate rewrites.
  6. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Update OWL ref since in CR
  7. Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Add a future work section for identifiers that the TAG expects to summarize various URI schemes and what agents can infer from the scheme.
  1. Completed action DO,NW 2003/10/08: Make the summary to replace 4.5 Extensibility and Versioning in the arch doc (done)
  1. Action CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.
  1. Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Write up text on information hiding/abstraction respect for before 2/3/4. (done)
  2. Action NW 2003/10/08: Revise QName finding. We will also add those two good practice notes to section 2:
    1. If you use Qnames, provide a mapping to URIs.
    2. Don't define an attribute that can take either a URI or a Qname since they are not syntactically distinguishable."
  3. Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Rewrite the last paragraph of 4.9.2 to be less inflammatory about DTDs (done)
  4. Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Massage three paragraphs following good practice note about persistency at beginning of 2.6. (done)
  1. Action RF 2003/10/08: Explain "identifies" in RFC 2396.
  1. Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about extensibility related to "when to tunnel".
  1. Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5 showing examples of freenet and other systems. Progress; see URISchemes/freenet

2.3 XML Versioning

Current draft is 3 Oct 2003 finding


DO: Norm and I did some work on this last week and this; I sent a new draft just now...
scribes thinks the relevant msg is "Proposed text for web arch section 4.5, extensibility and versioning" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0137.html
DO: intro/motivation text is new...
... diagram updated...
DO: I note the discussion of how to handle terminology sections; leaving that aside for a bit...
[I'm confused; I see "1.x" but DO is saying "4.x"]
This note is proposed to be inserted in the arch doc? (TBL confirms by reading from abstract)
s/x.y/4.x+5.y (ish)
DO: this text is shorter than the finding; xml-schema-specific stuff is left out
CL: what to do with the schema-specific stuff?
NW: it's still in the finding, which we haven't updated...
DanC: I'd like to discuss the thesis; is this it? "The primary motivation to allow instances of a language to be extended is to decentralize the task of designing, maintaining, and implementing extensions."
NW: that, plus you can't add extensibility later. gotta do it up front
[scribe was discussing, missed a whole pile]
SW: I see lots of good practice boxes; did you try to minimize those?
NW: no; I promoted all the boxes from the finding; perhaps we'll lose a few
PC: this "nobody but the owner can change a namespace"... hm... Query added stuff to XML Schema namespace...
DO: hmm!
TBL: with knowledge/consent?
PC and Norm: Yes, we discussed with the XML Schema WG and ensured they were okay with this addition to their namespace.
NW: recall the Query WG decided users can't add functions to the fn namespace
PC is excused at this point.
DC and DO: debate pro and con regarding defining terms on first use or separate terminology section
[... on style of tems...]
DO: we've spent a bunch of writing time on this; not sure how much more I'm interested to do.
DC: I said when this versioning stuff came up "sounds like an interesting book"; I think we're maybe 1/3rd done writing this. I still have serious problems with the 1st sentence.
SW earlier asked about whether to review it separately as part of the arch doc...
[several]: put it in
DC: I shopped this versioning stuff around; it's quite popular. Folks seem to want it.
TimBL: I think people want this set of terms nailed down; usage of "instance" in some places looks a bit informal in a way that might be misleading. Also, how much of this is XML specific? [draws analogy between HTTP URIs and URIs ala XML formats and formats]
NW: I think tim is asking for more precision in this section than we've held ourselves to in other sections
timbl: there are a bunch of new terms here; they merit the same review as other stuff
DO: how about: pls give us comments weds, NW and I do another draft by [missed it], then we hand to Ian
DC: extensibility and versioning are not cost free
"The primary motivation to allow instances of a language to be extended is to decentralize the task of designing, maintaining, and implementing extensions."
Hmm... here's a candidate for the thesis: "The primary motivation to allow instances of a language to be extended is to decentralize the task of designing, maintaining, and implementing extensions. It allows senders to change the instances without going through a centralized authority."

from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0029.html

The TAG does not expect to cover these issues

2.5 Findings

See also TAG findings home page.

2.2.1 Expected new findings

Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2003/11/06 13:18:41 $