W3C | TAG | Previous: 19 Apr teleconference | Next: 3 May
Minutes of 26 April 2004 TAG teleconference
Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details ·
issues list (handling new
issues)· www-tag
archive
1. Administrative
- Roll call. NW, DC (Scribe), MJ, SW (Chair), TBL, RF, CL, Regrets: IJ,
PC
- Accepted the minutes of the 29 Mar
teleconference
- Accepted the minutes of the 19 Apr
teleconference
- Accepted this agenda, with addition of item
2.4 on Workshop.
- Next meeting: 3 May. TBL to Chair. Regrets: NW, SW
1.1 May TAG ftf meeting in Boston
- See meeting page
- Action NW and IJ 2004/04/19: Work on agenda for ftf meeting.
[Expected this week]
1.2 May AC meeting in New York
- Registration, Agenda
- Presentation (17 May, 16:30, for 45 minutes including discussion)
- Topics?
- Flavor of LC comments? Biggest issues?
- Presenters?
[DanC_]
- SW: except PaulC, the only TAG members planning to attend are W3C
team. We need to work on our report. [sketch from agenda]
- DC: you could delegate to me and CL, with input from PaulC etc.
- TimBL: how about .mobile?
- DC: "we've had lots of comments. upside: folks are clearly reading.
downside: not easy to address quickly" I don't think we're gonna make
all the commentors happy. I'm curious about input from the AC about how
much consensus they want to see.
- NW: yeah... that could be useful.
- SW: like which? DanC: some commentors (Hayes etc.) won't likely be
satisfied unless we resolve httpRange-14
- CL: [Some comments on the Formats section seemed to relate to the
separation of presentation/content; webarch summarises the finding too
much and the finding needs revising. I worked on this last week and
hope to publish a revised finding soon. Also plan to submit a
discussion paper on this as late-breaking to Extreme markup.]
- RF: URI spec stuff is news.
- ... going to last call soon.
- CL: workshop on WebApps/CompoundDocs seems relevant to some of our
issues. The workshop has been brewing for a while but was earlier
called plugins or multinamespaces or various other aspects of the
problem.
- NW: perhaps we want a TAG position?
- TBL: will the workshop presentations be good TAG reading?
- CL: there will be the usual position papers
- ACTION DanC: prepare TAG presentation for
AC
2. Technical (60min)
See also open
actions by owner and open
issues.
2.1 Top Level Domains used as filters (.xxx, .mobile, etc.)
- Action CL 2004/03/29: Send a draft to www-tag explaining why the
.mobile proposal is misinformed. If the TAG supports the proposal, send
to ICANN on the official mailing list.
- Action IJ 2004/03/29: Talk to DJW about sending a proposal to the TAG
(focusing on social issues) that the TAG could review and possibly
endorse. Progress; I chatted with DJW. We are working on a position
statement.
[DanC_]
- re CL action "Send a draft to www-tag explaining why the .mobile
proposal is misinformed. If the TAG supports the proposal, send to
ICANN on the official mailing list."
- CL: I've been travelling... made some progress... sent something to
TimBL...
- TimBL: independently, I've been working on something...
- ... it turns out there are number of reasons why .mobile is
harmful... mostly regarding the cost of new TLDs
- TimBL: e.g. re all new TDLs: (1) there's an existing market in TLDs.
You can, to a certain extent, protect your trademark by buying $tm.com,
$tm.net, $tm.org ; .biz and .info bring that up to 5 ...
- ... and now [the stock has split]
- [no, that analogy doesn't work]
- ... and with each new TLD, the market is disrupted. The speculators
grab stuff first-come-first-served
- [3? oops]
- ... and then the market settles out.
- TimBL: re .mobile in particular: after researching this, I don't see
a clear description of the motivation for this domain...
- ... sometimes it's put forward as a way to get the mobile phone
devices on-board[?] quickly...
- ... if it's for content-designed-for-mobile-devices, then it's a
FLAGRANT violoation of a core principle about device independence.
[?]
- ... can't reuse a link to something when you use it from a different
device.
- ... e.g. you find a map in .mobile, email somebody a link to it, and
the recipient, using a 19" display, sees a 2" map.
- CL: the harm is in duplicating URIs needlessly
- CL: the harm that's done is that it gives the impression that the
.mobile stuff is separate from desktop stuff.
- ... it warps the meaning of the rest of the web, as well as the
.mobile part
- CL: the best thing about .mobile is to serve as a counterpoint to W3C
device indpendence work
- [Zakim]
- DanC_, you wanted to suggest that CL and TimBL send their stuff.
- [DanC_]
- [ discussion of tactics... ]
- "New sTLD RFP Application .mobi" http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/mobi.htm
- SW: 8.5 million Euro in profit by 2008, says the application (section
"Fiscal Information")
- TimBL: any new ones should be non-profit. CL: yes, quite
discussion concludes.
2.2 Marking Operations Safe in WSDL
- See Email
from David Orchard. Any updates regarding get7?
- [timbl]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#InterfaceOperation
- [DanC_]
- DC: yes, what they've done so far is fine, nifty. But I'd rather the
TAG reserved judgement until we see that it's actually used and
such.
- CL: there's a question of what happens when you take something unsafe
and mark it as safe and so on
- SW: PROPOSED: thank them for what they've done so far, ask them to
explain a bit about what can go wrong, encourage them to put it in the
test suite
so RESOLVED. ACTION
SW.
2.3 Revised Finding "Internet Media Type registration, consistency of
use"
- See 19 April
2004 "Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use"
[DanC_]
- DC: I got the impression this was an announcement of something done,
not a call for review. oops.
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0419-mime.html
- CL: main thing: it got shorter.
- (CL, did you say that the stuff that was cut was redundant w.r.t. the
webarch doc?)
- [Chris]
- yes
- no
- [DanC_]
- TBL: an aside, from an AB discussion, we could ask other folks to
edit stuff. Any problem with inviting, e.g. Bray or Orchard to edit
things?
- [Chris]
- redundant with http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
- [DanC_]
- several: no, no problem
- [Chris]
- zakim, who is here?
- [DanC_]
- DanC: if Bray's name is to remain on, I'd like to be sure he's OK
with the changes
- PROPOSED: to adopt the finding http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0419-mime.html
- so RESOLVED, subject to consultation
with Tim Bray to see if he wants his name to remain.
2.4 Workshop on Compound Documents
[DanC_]
- http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/
- CL: workshop home says it all, pretty much
- ... we've discussed compound docs...
- DC: workshop home doesn't say that the TAG has discussed compound
docs
- CL: ah... will fix.
- [Roy]
- "How are they related to Web documents, which are normally static?"
-- gurk!
- [DanC_]
- CL: the "web applications" stuff is what particularly motivates
multi-namespace docs across the wire, as opposed to converting to .html
on the server side
NW: I hope to attend the workshop.
2.5 Web Architecture Document Last Call
Resources:
- Last Call
issues list (sorted by
section)
- Annotated
version of WebArch
- Archive of public-webarch-comments
- List of
actions by TAG participant
- Additional actions
- Action IJ 2004/02/09: Incorporate editorial suggestions (see
minutes of that meeting for details).
Actions 2004/03/15 (due 25 March?) to review sections:
- Norm: I volunteer for section 3 (Proposed)
- TBL: I volunteer 2 hours starting at start of section 2
- Roy: I volunteer to look at section 2
- Stuart: I volunteer starting at section 2.3
- Mario: I will look at section 4
NW Review of Section 3
[DanC_]
- NW's notes on section 3 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Apr/0011.html
- DC: [...]
- CL: I agree that POST-only things are "on the Web"
- [Roy]
- I would say all it has to be is referenced from the Web to be on the
Web, which also implies having a URI.
- [Stuart]
- I agree with Roy
- [Roy]
- A resource is on the Web when it has been assigned a URI and is
referenced by some other part of the Web; hence, the Web is a graph of
referenced resources.
- [Zakim]
- DanC_, you wanted to disagree re "on the web"
- [DanC_]
- CL: then car:car.something is on the web? that reduces the definition
of "on the web" to nothing
- TBL: I think the common parlance definition of "on the Web" means you
can GET a representation of it.
- RF: I thought we agreed to speak of the wider web, including semantic
web, in this webarch document.
- [Chris]
- TimBL++
- [DanC_]
- TimBL: the common use is, e.g. "W3C specs and IETF specs are on the
web and ISO specs are not"
- CL: ISO specs are "on the web" in the sense RF mentioned, since they
have isbn: identifiers
- RF: yes, one application may be able to get a representation of an
isbn:... resource, even though the average client may not
- MJ: yes, otherwise, we restrict ourselves to http...
- TBL: I think it's counter-productive to go there...
- [Roy]
- A resource is "on the Web" when it has been assigned a URI that makes
the resource accessible to all clients that use the Web. ???
- [mario]
- Sounds like a circural definition ...
- [DanC_]
- NW: hmm... maybe strike it after all?
- (poll started... interrupted)
- [timbl]
- A resource is "on the Web" when it has been assigned a URI that makes
the resource generally accessable using standard protocols.
- [Norm]
- So tel: and urn: aren't on the web?
- [timbl]
- A resource is "on the Web" when it has been assigned a URI that
allows one to generally obtain a representation of it using standard
protocols.
- [DanC_]
- RF: did you exclude POST-only things on purpose?
- TimBL: yes.
- [Zakim]
- DanC_, you wanted to note that we don't have a need for this
definition, timbl. it can be deleted without breaking any links.
- [Roy]
- /me will take the rocky road definition, two scoops please
- [DanC_]
- PROPOSED: to strike the "on the web" note
- [Roy]
- yes
- [Norm]
- yes
- [Stuart]
- yes
- [mario]
- no
- [timbl]
- I object
- Carried over my objection.
- [DanC_]
RESOLVED: to strike the "on the web"
note, TimBL objecting.
ACTION NW: respond to the commentor,
noting we agreed.
- [Roy]
- I suggest that we remove it until someone writes an appendix that
defines the several variations of "on the Web" depending upon what type
of client is being used.
- [mario]
- +1 to roy
Issue
kopecky2: Reference or Identify?
- [DanC_]
- NW: I think ref/identify is sufficiently clear as is. propose: no
text changes.
- DC: ok by me
- RF: hmm... did this text come from the URI spec?
- ... if so, does it need updating?
- PROPOSED: to close kopecky2 without changes to webarch
- [Norm]
- yes
- [Roy]
- yes
- [timbl]
- Tim
- [Stuart]
- yes
- [DanC_]
RESOLVED to close kopecky2 without
changes to webarch. ACTION NW
Issue
klyne11: Change "will result" to "will necessarily result"
- [DanC_]
- PROPOSED: to add "necessarily" per klyne11
- [Norm]
- yes
- [Stuart]
- yes
- [mario]
- yes
- [DanC_]
- DanC: this looks editorial. NW: but the editor didn't mark it so.
RESOLVED to add "necessarily" per
klyne1. ACTION NW
The TAG did not discuss issues below this line.
1.3 Revised TAG Charter (10-15 minutes MAXIMUM)
3. Status report on these findings
See also TAG findings
4. Other action items
- Action DC 2003/11/15: Follow up on KeepPOSTRecords with Janet Daly on
how to raise awareness of this point (which is in CUAP).
- Action CL 2003/10/27: Draft XML mime type thingy with Murata-san
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2004/05/07 19:56:13 $