W3C | TAG | Previous: 7 June | Next: 28 June

Minutes of 14 June 2004 TAG teleconference

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

In Memoriam

Resolved: The TAG regrets the tragic loss of Mario Jeckle.

1. Administrative

  1. Roll call: DC, NW, CL, PC, RF, SW (Scribe). Regrets: TBL, IJ
  2. Resolved to accept the minutes of the 7 June teleconf?
  3. Accepted this agenda
  4. Next meeting 21 June?
  5. Resolved upcoming schedule:
  6. Action TBL 2004/05/12: Talk to TB and DO about editor role.
  7. NW to Chair during SW absence 19 and 26 July.

1.1 Meeting schedule

Action TAG 2004/06/07: Send summer regrets to TAG list.

  1. AC meeting rescheduled for 2-3 December. Does this affect whether to hold TAG ftf meeting in November?
  2. Ottawa meeting update?

    Action NW/PC: Prepare ftf meeting agenda.

  3. 5-7 October Basel meeting update?

1.3 TAG Charter

Action IJ 2004/06/07: Report back on next AB meeting to discuss TAG charter and relation to patent policy.

[No change].

2. Technical

See also open actions by owner and open issues.

Completed action items:

  1. Resolved completed action IJ 2004/05/24/: Announce the closure of issue URIEquivalence-15. See proposal to drop this action.
  2. Request from Chris to confirm that three action items completed. Resolved done or moot.

2.1 xml11Names-46

  1. Resolved completed action NW 2004/06/07: Write up XML 1.1 Question for the TAG. If there are no objections to formulation, forward to the XML CG on behalf of TAG. (Proposed)
  2. Resolved to forward NW's summary to XML CG. Norm and Paul have already discussed with XML CG who are willing to pick this up

2.2 httpRange-14 status

Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document.

[No change].

2.3 IRI draft status in IETF

The IRI spec has moved on since the TAG's 22 March 2004 discussion. Martin Duerst has sumbitted the 08 draft to the IESG for approval. The concerns expressed in [a] centred around lack of maturity of the spec. and lack of delployment and usage experience.

[skw-scribe]

DC: Reminds TAG wrt request to remove IRI section 7 from Charmod Fundementals. Introduces note from i18n seeking clarification.
RF: The IRI specification is not done yet.
CL: I accept this in theory, but in practice it becomes vanishingly less likely. I find their argument reasonably well-made but not (yet?) convincing.
DC: Recap's on TAG request to split Charmod.
RF: As long as i18n are willing to accept the dependency on IRI wrt Charmod progress to REC.... wouldn't recommend it, but they could do that. IRI isn't done until the IESG say that it is. I'd prefer that they split it out.
CL: I18N are arguing that testing should be addressed in IRI spec rather than Charmod.
DC: Looks very much like a normative reference.
[Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to note Roy seems to be answering one of the I18N WG's questions "2. Is the concern about the draft status of the IRI document or about the maturity of IRIs as a technology?"
[skw-scribe]
DC: Question from i18n: are we concern about maturity of spec. or the IRI technology.
RF: Explains that IESG will be very concerned about anything that affects/impacts DNS. Concerns over where Punycode gets done. Both URI and IRI are consistent, BUT both are I-Ds and may both encounter pushback from IESG.
CL: There is deployment experience in Korea?
RF: Some implementations in browsers...
CL: Was talking about DNS more generally.?
RF: It's deployed elsewhere too... Poland...
[Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to voice an I18N WG question about tests
[skw-scribe]
PC: Does the note from i18n require a response.?
DC: Yes. Addressing the question what should we test... quoting "IE, Opera, Safari have been doing the right thing...."
[Chris]
opera and safari and mozilla do the utf-8 to punycode conversion on dereference
[skw-scribe]
DC: Testing all the specs that reference the IRI spec is not, should not be the job of i18n.
CL: Can't really just say that these things are doing the right thing. Need test cases that can be separately verified.
SW: Asks whether IRI spec contains test case cf test cases as in URI spec.
CL: That would be hard in an ascii based doc.
[Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to follow up on Roy's point about accepting a normative reference to the IRI spec
[skw-scribe]
CL: I would like them to exist in the form that they are to be used.
SW: Clarifies interest is in the existence of such test, comparible with tests in URI spec.
DC/CL: Could request clarification of normative nature of reference to IRI spec.
NW: 3 options
  1. something about test assertions.
  2. point out that the reference appears to be normative but isn't
  3. ask them to acknowledge that they understand that the IRI spec isn't far enough along to normatively reference and ask what they propose to do about that
[DanC]
1: in response to their question of what to test, suggest that "browsers do the right thing" is worth testing
[skw-scribe]
PC: Question... isn't there a problem wrt to i18n declaiming responsibility for testing IRI implementation?
CL: ...yes I agree.
[DanC]
(yes, that "not the job of the I18N WG" comment gave me pause)
[skw-scribe]
CL: reiterates previous aquisence was on the basis of the need for testing.
[Norm]
4: TAG believes that I18N within the W3C needs to get clear understanding with other working groups about who holds the responsiblity for testing I18N features in the other specs
[DanC]
I can't sign up to 4: yet
[skw-scribe]
DC: I think that their position is reasonable - that that WG bears responsibilty for own testing of i18n features.
PC: Possibly need a test-suite that sweeps across multiple specs.
[Chris]
the i18n wg could help ensure that individual wgs do in fact test things like use of non-english tet, etc (not just in iris)
[skw-scribe]
DC: You've identified a problem, but it may not be the most constructive thing to address that at i18n.
NW: Are we at point of dimishing returns wrt this immediate discussion.
[Chris]
ACTION CL: draft text and send to TAG for review

2.4 Web Architecture Document Last Call

See the 8 June 2004 Editor's Draft. Assign reviewers to specific sections?

Actions:

  1. DC to review section 2 of 8 June draft.
  2. PC to review sections 1, 5, and 6 of 8 June draft.
  3. CL to review section 4 of 8 June draft.
  4. SW, NW to review entire 8 June draft.

Resources:

  1. Last Call issues list (sorted by section)
  2. Annotated version of WebArch
  3. Archive of public-webarch-comments
  4. List of actions by TAG participant

The TAG does not expect to discuss issues below this line.

3. Status report on these findings

See also TAG findings

4. Other action items

Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2004/06/17 12:27:19 $