A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist below:

TAG Issues List

As of 28 Aug 2007 the TAG has transitioned its issues list and action item tracking to Tracker .

This list remains as a HISTORICAL REFERENCE ONLY. The issues list actually used by the TAG is its Tracker Page .

Issue details w3cMediaType-1: Should W3C WGs define their own media types? [link to this issue]

What are the general guidelines or policies (if any) for W3C working groups in defining their own media types? Should they be defining them at all?

Request concerning
W3C Data Formats
Discussion history
22 Apr 2002, 29 Apr 2002, 20 May 2002, 17 Jun 2002, 8 Jul 2002, 25 Jul 2006
Categories
Transition history
raised on 9 Jan 2002 by Mark Baker , on behalf of XML Protocol WG
accepted on 21 Jan 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
uncefactLiaison-5: Invitation to create liaison with UN/CEFACT ebTWG Architecture Group [link to this issue]

There are several architectural issues in UN/CEFACT and ebXML which should probably be solved by the W3C group. The needs are not specific to ebXML and several other "Registry" and XML vocabulary groups may have similar requirements.

Request concerning
Categories
Transition history
raised on 3 Jan 2002 by Duane Nickull , on behalf of UN/CEFACT ebTWG Architecture Group
declined on 8 Feb 2002

TAG suggests that request be redirected to new Web Services Architecture Working Group

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 8 Feb 2002
rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6: Algorithm for creating a URI from a QName? [link to this issue]

"It seems to me that the RDFCore and XMLSchema WGs (at the very least) ought to develop a common, reasonably acceptable convention as to the mapping between QNames and URIs. Perhaps this is an issue that the TAG ought to consider (because it is a really basic architectural issue)."

Request concerning
Discussion history
5 May 2002, 24 Sep 2002, 25 Nov 2002, 6 Feb 2003, 23 Jun 2003, 15 Nov 2003, 5 Dec 2002, 5 Jan 2004, 26 Jan 2004, 9 Feb 2004, 2 Mar 2004
Categories
Transition history
raised on 22 Jan 2002 by Jonathan Borden
accepted on 29 Jan 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 15 Nov 2003

The use of Qnames as identifiers without providing a mapping to URIs is inconsistent with Web Architecture. See the TAG finding Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in Content .

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 2 Dec 2003
agreement by reviewer on 16 Dec 2003

Accepts the situation

Action history DO whenToUseGet-7: (1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in XForms (2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like method? GET plus a body?) [link to this issue]

See comments from Paul Prescod to Forms WG "I know you've recently been asked about PUT. During that discussion it arose that HTTP GET is deprecated in the specification. Does this mean that XForms would be incompatible with an application like Google that uses a form to generate a GET URL?"

Request concerning
Discussion history
4 Feb 2002, 8 Apr 2002, 15 Apr 2002, 22 Apr 2002, 29 Apr 2002, 5 May 2002, 20 May 2002, 3 Jun 2002, 10 Jun 2002, 8 Jul 2002, 25 Nov 2002, 6 Feb 2003, 5 May 2003, 23 Jun 2003, 7 Jul 2003, 15 Sep 2003, 8 Oct 2003, 5 Dec 2002, 5 Jan 2004, 9 Feb 2004, 2 Mar 2004, 10 Oct 2006, 17 Oct 2006, 24 Oct 2006, 11 Dec 2006, 11 Dec 2006, 9 Jan 2007, 26 Feb 2007
Categories
Transition history
raised on 23 Jan 2002 by Dan Connolly , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 29 Jan 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 25 Nov 2002

URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET .

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 22 Sep 2003
agreement by reviewer on 22 Sep 2003

Acknowledged by DanC by virtue of WG agreement

raised on 10 Oct 2006

Reopening the issue as an umbrella (together with issue endPointRefs-47 ) for discussing submission WS-Transfer .

Acknowledgment cycle
Not started
accepted on 10 Oct 2006
Acknowledgment cycle
Not started
Action history namespaceDocument-8: What should a "namespace document" look like? [link to this issue]

The section on namespaces in Web Architecture from 50,000 feet states: "The namespace document (with the namespace URI) is a place for the language publisher to keep definitive material about a namespace. Schema languages are ideal for this." Tim Bray disagrees.

Request concerning
Web Architecture from 50,000 feet
Discussion history
25 Mar 2002, 1 Apr 2002, 8 Apr 2002, 5 May 2002, 24 Sep 2002, 25 Sep 2002, 18 Nov 2002, 9 Dec 2002, 16 Dec 2002, 6 Jan 2003, 13 Jan 2003, 6 Feb 2003, 17 Feb 2003, 24 Feb 2003, 24 Mar 2003, 7 Apr 2003, 14 Apr 2003, 23 Jun 2003, 8 Sep 2003, 15 Sep 2003, 5 Dec 2002, 26 Jan 2004, 2 Mar 2004, 14 May 2004, 5 Apr 2005, 16 Jun 2005, 12 Jul 2005, 30 Aug 2005, 22 Sep 2005, 11 Oct 2005, 1 Nov 2005, 8 Nov 2005, 6 Dec 2005, 10 Jan 2006, 21 Feb 2006, 2 May 2006, 14 Jun 2006, 5 Oct 2006, 14 Nov 2006, 13 Dec 2006, 6 Mar 2007
Transition history
raised on 14 Jan 2002 by Tim Bray , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 4 Feb 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
Action history uriMediaType-9: Why does the Web use mime types and not URIs? [link to this issue]

Media types are not first-class objects on the Web, or are they?

Request concerning
General
Discussion history
8 Apr 2002, 15 Apr 2002, 22 Jul 2002, 12 Aug 2002, 30 Aug 2002, 9 Dec 2002, 6 Feb 2003, 5 May 2003, 23 Jun 2003, 15 Dec 2003, 14 May 2004, 12 Jul 2005
Transition history
raised on 17 Dec 2001 by Aaron Swartz
accepted on 4 Feb 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 21 Oct 2002

TAG Finding: Mapping between URIs and Internet Media Types . The TAG has not resolved this issue since the loop has not been closed with the IETF. See Internet Draft A Registry of Assignments using Ubiquitous Technologies and Careful Policies by D. Connolly and M. Baker.

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 21 Oct 2002
Action history mixedNamespaceMeaning-13: What is the meaning of a document composed of content in mixed namespaces? [link to this issue]

This was raised in the light of lack of consensus result from the workshop, and specifically prompted by a question, occurring as XEncryption made its way to Candidate Recommendation status in W3C, about the relationship of XEncryption to other specs, and TAG discussion of XSLT "templates" as an apparent corner case in XML processing.

Second issue: namespace-based dispatching. From TAG draft finding on issues *-{1,2,3}, the following draft text was removed for discussion as part of this issue:

When processing XML documents, it is appropriate for Web applications to dispatch elements to modules for processing based on the namespace of the element type.

Correct dispatching and processing requires context - in general it is not reasonable nor safe to do namespace-based processing without knowledge of the namespace of ancestor elements. Because of this, the namespace of the root element of an XML document has special status and serves naturally as a basis for top-level software dispatching in the case where the dispatch information is not externally supplied.

It is acknowledged that there are exceptions to this rule, for example XSLT documents whose root element's namespace depends on the desired output from application of the XSLT.

It should be noticed that in the case of certain sort of element including some in XSLT, XInclude, XEncryption namespaces, that a system conforming to the specification will regcognize them at any point in a document and elaborate them in place, typically producing more XML which replaces the element instance in the tree.

Request concerning
Discussion history
11 Mar 2002, 22 Apr 2002, 5 May 2002, 25 Sep 2002, 6 Feb 2003, 9 Feb 2004, 5 Apr 2005
Categories
Transition history
raised on 22 Apr 2002 by Tim Berners-Lee , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 22 Apr 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
Subsumed by issue(s) mixedUIXMLNamespace-33, xmlFunctions-34, RDFinXHTML-35 on 6 Feb 2003

Split into three smaller issues: mixedUIXMLNamespace-33 , xmlFunctions-34 , and RDFinXHTML-35

httpRange-14: What is the range of the HTTP dereference function? [link to this issue]

TBL's argument the HTTP URIs (without "#") should be understood as referring to documents, not cars.

Request concerning
Discussion history
1 Jul 2002, 15 Jul 2002, 22 Jul 2002, 29 Jul 2002, 16 Sep 2002, 24 Sep 2002, 6 Jan 2003, 27 Jan 2003, 6 Feb 2003, 7 Jun 2003, 23 Jun 2003, 22 Jul 2003, 28 Jul 2003, 12 May 2004, 7 Feb 2005, 15 Mar 2005, 29 Mar 2005, 3 May 2005, 31 May 2005, 15 Jun 2005, 27 Feb 2006, 27 Feb 2006, 26 Feb 2007, 30 May 2007, 31 May 2007, 11 Jun 2007, 18 Jun 2007, 2 Jul 2007
Transition history
raised on 25 Mar 2002 by Tim Berners-Lee , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 6 Feb 2003
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 15 Jun 2005

The TAG provides advice to the community that they may mint "http" URIs for any resource provided that they follow this simple rule for the sake of removing ambiguity:

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 18 Jun 2005
Action history URIEquivalence-15: When are two URI variants considered equivalent? [link to this issue]

From Joseph Reagle:

Stephen [Farrell] has asked an interesting question below that I expect will be important to any activity that uses URIs as identifiers in the context of a semantic/security application: when are two URI variants considered identical?

Request concerning
Discussion history
22 Jul 2002, 29 Jul 2002, 30 Aug 2002, 18 Nov 2002, 16 Dec 2002, 20 Jan 2003, 7 Feb 2003, 24 Mar 2003, 31 Mar 2003, 14 Apr 2003, 28 Apr 2003, 30 Jun 2003, 5 Dec 2002, 5 Jan 2004, 2 Mar 2004, 22 Mar 2004, 14 May 2004
Categories
Transition history
raised on 19 Feb 2002 by Joseph Reagle
accepted on 1 Apr 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 14 Apr 2003

Draft finding: URI Comparison (link not maintained but see RFC3986). . This has been integrated into RFC2396bis ( CVS repository ); the TAG expects to follow the progress of RFC2396bis. Commentary and resolution should happen through the IETF process.

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 14 Apr 2002
agreement by reviewer on 12 Dec 2002
Action history TBL HTTPSubstrate-16: Should HTTP be used as a substrate protocol? Does W3C agree with RFC 3205? [link to this issue]

From Mark Nottingham:

The IETF has recently published RFC3205, "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate" [1] as Best Current Practice.

This document makes a number of recommendations regarding the use of HTTP. Some are reasonable, such as guidelines about what kinds of scenarios the HTTP is most useful in, how to use media types and methods to extend the HTTP, etc. However, it also bases a number of recommendations on a fuzzily-defined concept of 'traditional use' of the HTTP. These directives may seriously limit the future potential of the Web, effectively freezing its capability to common practice in 2001."

Request concerning
RFC3205
Discussion history
30 Jun 2003, 12 May 2004, 7 Feb 2005, 21 Sep 2005
Transition history
raised on 24 Mar 2002 by Mark Nottingham
accepted on 1 Apr 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
deferred on 12 May 2004

The TAG decided to defer this issue pending any attempt to enforce RFC3205.

Action history qnameAsId-18: Is it ok to use Qnames as Identifiers? [link to this issue]

Is it ok to use Qnames as Identifiers?

Request concerning
Namespaces in XML, section 3
Discussion history
20 May 2002, 10 Jun 2002, 17 Jun 2002, 24 Jun 2002, 15 Jul 2002, 15 Dec 2003, 12 Jan 2004, 9 Feb 2004, 23 Feb 2004, 2 Mar 2004, 15 Mar 2004
Categories
Transition history
raised on 19 Apr 2002 by Joseph Reagle , on behalf of XKMS WG
accepted on 29 Apr 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 22 Jul 2002

Finding: Using QNames as Identifiers

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 22 Jul 2002
agreement by reviewer on 12 Dec 2002
Action history formattingProperties-19: Reuse existing formatting properties/names, coordinate new ones [link to this issue]

Reuse existing formatting properties/names, coordinate new ones

Request concerning
CSS3
Discussion history
17 Jun 2002, 8 Jul 2002, 15 Jul 2002, 5 Dec 2002
Categories
Transition history
raised on 8 May 2002 by Steve Zilles
accepted on 20 May 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 22 Jul 2002

Finding: Consistency of Formatting Property Names, Values, and Semantics

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 22 Jul 2002
errorHandling-20: What should specifications say about error handling? [link to this issue]

What should specifications say about error handling?

Request concerning
W3C specifications
Discussion history
27 May 2002, 3 Jun 2002, 6 Feb 2003, 30 Jun 2003, 15 Nov 2003, 5 Jan 2004, 2 Mar 2004
Categories
Transition history
raised on 22 May 2002 by Rob Lanphier
accepted on 3 Jun 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 15 Nov 2003

The TAG believes it has addressed a majority of points about the issue in the 11 Nov 2003 draft, with pointers to relevant sections 3.4 and 1.2.2, as well as the section on versioning and extensibility. The TAG declines at this time to handle the following questions raised by the reviewer: (1) Extension of XML. Answer: Application dependent. (2) Handling of deprecated elements.

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 2 Dec 2003
agreement by reviewer on 12 Dec 2003
Action history augmentedInfoset-22: Infoset augmentation outside of PSVI? [link to this issue]

So I recommend a TAG finding along the following lines:

  1. Type-augmented XML is a good thing and a recommendation should be prepared describing it both at the infoset and syntax level. (I gather there is already some work along these lines in XML Schema?). Serious consideration should be given to 80/20 points rather than simply re-using the plethora of primitive types from XML Schema.
  2. Type-augmented XML has nothing to say about default values created in any schema.
  3. Any software can create and/or use type-augmented XML, whether or not any validation is being performed.
  4. Work on XQuery and other things that require a Type-Augmented Infoset must not depend on schema processing, and should not have normative linkages to any schema language specifications.
Request concerning
XML Schema Part 1: Structures
Discussion history
17 Jun 2002, 8 Jul 2002, 26 Aug 2002
Categories
Transition history
raised on 12 Jun 2002 by Tim Bray , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 17 Jun 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 26 Aug 2002

For now, the TAG has decided the issue by withdrawing it. From TB: "I learned that while there are linkages between xquery and xml schema, they are non-normative; you can implement xquery with other schema languages; so I don't see an architecture issue at the moment. I submitted a large comment to the xquery process that there does remain too much intermingling with xml schema that could easily go away. If the two specs aren't made sufficiently independent, I expect to come back to the TAG."

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 26 Aug 2002
agreement by reviewer on 26 Aug 2003

Acknowledged by TB by virtue of WG agreement

xlinkScope-23: What is the scope of using XLink? [link to this issue]

For me this questions depends on whether the document type is a human-readable hypertext document, when generic hypertext xml tools would benefit from knowing what is a link, and whether significance of the URI in question is a hypertext link or something different.

Request concerning
XML Linking Language (XLINK)
Discussion history
17 Jun 2002, 1 Jul 2002, 26 Aug 2002, 30 Aug 2002, 16 Sep 2002, 24 Sep 2002, 7 Oct 2002, 21 Oct 2002, 11 Nov 2002, 18 Nov 2002, 16 Jan 2003, 20 Jan 2003, 6 Feb 2003, 17 Mar 2003, 30 Jun 2003, 2 Mar 2003, 14 May 2004, 6 Oct 2004, 7 Feb 2005, 22 Mar 2005, 21 Sep 2005
Transition history
raised on 14 Jun 2002 by Tim Berners-Lee , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 17 Jun 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 21 Sep 2005

Paragraph 4.5.2 of Web Architecture closes the issue. See also draft of XML Linking Language (XLink) Version 1.1 .

Acknowledgment cycle
Not started
Action history contentTypeOverride-24: Can a specification include rules for overriding HTTP content type parameters? [link to this issue]

For me this questions depends on whether the document type is a human-readable hypertext document, when generic hypertext xml tools would benefit from knowing what is a link, and whether significance of the URI in question is a hypertext link or something different.

Maybe a compromise is to only allow the link to specify the content-type when the server is FTP (or something else with no content-type control) or the HTTP server returns text/plain or octet-steam, which seem to be used for "don't know" types.

Request concerning
Discussion history
6 Feb 2003, 24 Mar 2003, 7 Apr 2003, 5 May 2003, 12 May 2003, 16 Jun 2003, 23 Jun 2003, 30 Jun 2003, 7 Jul 2003, 8 Oct 2003, 5 Dec 2002, 15 Dec 2003, 26 Jan 2004
Categories
Transition history
raised on 14 Jun 2002 by Tim Berners-Lee , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 22 Jul 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 4 Dec 2003

The 3 Dec 2003 Editor's Draft of the Architecture Document accurately represents the TAG's position on the authoritative nature of server messages.

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 4 Dec 2002
agreement by reviewer on 4 Dec 2003

Acknowledged by TBL by virtue of WG agreement

Action history deepLinking-25: What to say in defense of principle that deep linking is not an illegal act? [link to this issue]

Strawman from Tim Bray:

The architecture of the World Wide Web does not support the notion of a "home page" or a "gateway page", and any effort in law to pretend otherwise is therefore bad policy. The publication of a Uniform Resource Identifier is, in the architecture of the Web, a statement that a resource is available for retrieval. The technical protocols which are used for Web interaction provide a variety of means for site operators to control access, including password protection and the requirement that users take a particular route to a page. It would be appropriate to bring the law to bear against those who violate these protocols. It is not appropriate to use it in the case where information consumers are using the Web according to its published rules of operation.

Request concerning
Slashdot article on court ruling in Denmark
Discussion history
30 Aug 2002, 9 Sep 2002, 7 Feb 2003, 17 Feb 2003, 15 Sep 2003, 8 Oct 2003, 3 Nov 2003, 15 Nov 2003
Categories
Transition history
raised on 5 Jul 2002 by Tim Bray , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 22 Jul 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 7 Feb 2003

Accepted Draft finding from TB

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 7 Feb 2003
agreement by reviewer on 7 Feb 2003

Acknowledged by TB by virtue of WG agreement

Action history contentPresentation-26: Separation of semantic and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is architecturally sound. [link to this issue]

Strawman from Tim Bray :

I would however, support an assertion in the architecture document that important information SHOULD be stored and (optionally) delivered with markup that is as semantically rich as achievable, and that separation of semantic and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is architecturally sound.

Request concerning
Discussion history
24 Sep 2002, 6 Feb 2003, 21 Jul 2003, 8 Oct 2003, 14 May 2004, 7 Feb 2005, 21 Sep 2005
Transition history
raised on 15 Aug 2002 by Dan Connolly , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 26 Aug 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 21 Sep 2005

Section 4.3 of Web Architecture closes the issue.

Acknowledgment cycle
Not started
Action history IRIEverywhere-27: Should W3C specifications start promoting IRIs? [link to this issue]

The XML Core WG would like TAG input on whether the desirability of adopting IRIs into the web infrastructure early outweighs the anticipated disruption of legacy systems.

The XML Core WG would also like TAG input on the wisdom of early adoption given the "Internet Draft" status of the IRI draft . So far adoption has relied on "copy and paste", but there is potential for these definitions to get out of sync.

Request concerning
Discussion history
28 Oct 2002, 11 Nov 2002, 18 Nov 2002, 27 Jan 2003, 6 Feb 2003, 31 Mar 2003, 7 Apr 2003, 14 Apr 2003, 28 Apr 2003, 14 May 2004, 21 Sep 2005, 13 Dec 2005, 23 Jan 2007, 12 Feb 2007, 26 Mar 2007
Transition history
raised on 9 Oct 2002 by Jonathan Marsh , on behalf of XML Core WG
accepted on 28 Oct 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
Action history fragmentInXML-28: Use of fragment identifiers in XML [link to this issue]

Do fragment identifiers refer to a syntactice element (at least for XML content), or can they refer to abstractions?

Example from 17.2.2 SVG fragment identifiers :

MyDrawing.svg#svgView(viewBox(0,200,1000,1000))

The SVG spec states "This form of addressing specifies the desired view of the document (e.g., the region of the document to view, the initial zoom level) completely within the SVG fragment specification."

From Dan Connolly:

Do you consider the quoted paragraph above in error?

Or do you disagree with my interpretation of it, i.e. that MyDrawing.svg#svgView(viewBox(0,200,1000,1000)) identifes a view of the drawing, and not any particular XML element (nor other syntactic structure) in the document.

Request concerning
XML
Discussion history
12 May 2004, 7 Feb 2005, 10 May 2005, 31 May 2005, 1 Nov 2005
Transition history
raised on 31 Oct 2002 by Dan Connolly , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 4 Nov 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 12 May 2004
Acknowledgment cycle
Not started
Action history xmlProfiles-29: When, whither and how to profile W3C specifications in the XML Family [link to this issue]

When, whither and how to profile W3C specifications in the XML Family

Request concerning
XML family of specifications
Discussion history
2 Dec 2002, 9 Dec 2002, 16 Dec 2002, 6 Jan 2003, 13 Jan 2003, 27 Jan 2003, 6 Feb 2003, 15 Sep 2003, 5 Dec 2002, 5 Jul 2005
Categories
Transition history
raised on 25 Nov 2002 by Paul Grosso
accepted on 2 Dec 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 27 Jan 2003

TAG recommendation for work on subset of XML 1.1 . See followup to AC (Member-only) . Work is being carried out in the XML Core WG.

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 30 Jan 2003
Action history binaryXML-30: Standardize a "binary XML" format? [link to this issue]

Given that binary infosets (currently, binary PSVIs ) is what I work on daily and that I am currently investigating ways in which they could fit naturally into the web (content-coding registration for instance), I would be very interested in knowing what -- if anything at this point -- the TAG thinks of them and of how they could best fit in.

Request concerning
XML
Discussion history
2 Dec 2002, 13 Jan 2003, 27 Jan 2003, 6 Feb 2003, 17 Feb 2003, 12 May 2004, 7 Feb 2005, 28 Feb 2005, 15 Mar 2005, 5 Apr 2005, 12 Apr 2005, 26 Apr 2005, 3 May 2005, 10 May 2005
Transition history
raised on 9 Oct 2002 by Robin Berjon
accepted on 2 Dec 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
deferred on 12 May 2004

W3C has chartered the XML Binary Characterization Working Group to address this issue. The TAG anticipates reviewing the WG's deliverables in this area.

Action history metadataInURI-31: Should metadata (e.g., versioning information) be encoded in URIs? [link to this issue]

The TAG's preliminary response is that URIs should not include metadata. The TAG accepted this issue to provide guidance on addressing the issues raised.

From Ossi:

To outline the following text, I'm actually suggesting (asking comments for) two rather practical things:

  1. There should be a uniform way to declare version history of web resources (recommended by W3C)?, and more importantly
  2. There should be a "clean", uniform way to refer to (and thus access) the metadata of web resources?
Request concerning
Discussion history
2 Dec 2002, 6 Feb 2003, 7 Jul 2003, 21 Jul 2003, 8 Oct 2003, 14 May 2004, 7 Feb 2005, 21 Sep 2005, 13 Dec 2005, 21 Mar 2006, 2 May 2006, 16 May 2006, 30 May 2006, 14 Jun 2006, 25 Jul 2006, 8 Aug 2006, 19 Sep 2006, 4 Oct 2006, 7 Nov 2006, 14 Nov 2006, 11 Dec 2006, 2 Jan 2007
Transition history
raised on 25 Nov 2002 by Ossi Nykänen
accepted on 2 Dec 2002
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 11 Dec 2006

See resolution .

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 3 Jan 2007
Action history xmlIDSemantics-32: How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD? [link to this issue]

I would like to raise a new issue to the TAG. The issue is how to determine ID attributes in any new work on XML, such as a new profile or subset as dealt within issue xmlProfiles-29 . I understand that this issue will be normatively referred to in any communications on issue #29.

Chris Lilley has started an excellent discussion on the various options for ID attributes, so I won't duplicate that work. A number of responders have said they are quite supportive of providing a definition of IDs as part of any new work on XMLProfiles, such as the Web Services Architecture Working Group. There is also some pushback, so it seems worthy to have a continued discussion, and the TAG should attempt to quickly reach consensus.

Request concerning
XML 1.1
Discussion history
27 Jan 2003, 6 Feb 2003, 14 Apr 2003, 30 Jun 2003, 8 Oct 2003, 12 Jan 2004, 7 Feb 2004, 12 May 2004, 19 Apr 2005, 21 Sep 2005
Transition history
raised on 30 Jan 2003 by David Orchard , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 30 Jan 2003
Background, proposals, threads, notes
deferred on 12 May 2004

At their 12 May 2004 ftf meeting, the TAG accepted the proposed finding "How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD?". The issue is deferred while the XML Core WG continues work on this issue.

agreed on 21 Sep 2005

xml:id Version 1.0 is a Recommendation

Acknowledgment cycle
Not started
Action history xmlFunctions-34: XML Transformation and composability (e.g., XSLT, XInclude, Encryption) [link to this issue]

Raised by the TAG as an offshoot of mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 .

Request concerning
Discussion history
6 Feb 2003, 21 Sep 2005, 31 Jan 2006, 7 Feb 2006, 18 Apr 2006, 25 Apr 2006, 11 Dec 2006, 30 Jan 2007, 11 Jun 2007
Transition history
raised on 6 Feb 2003 by TAG, on behalf of TAG
accepted on 6 Feb 2003
Background, proposals, threads, notes
Action history RDFinXHTML-35: Syntax and semantics for embedding RDF in XHTML [link to this issue]

Raised by the TAG as an offshoot of mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 .

Request concerning
Discussion history
6 Feb 2003, 14 May 2004, 22 Feb 2005, 28 Feb 2005, 13 Dec 2005, 14 Jun 2006, 13 Dec 2006, 12 Feb 2007
Transition history
raised on 6 Feb 2003 by TAG, on behalf of TAG
accepted on 6 Feb 2003
Background, proposals, threads, notes
deferred on 13 Dec 2006

The TAG decided to defer this issue pending work by the GRDDL WG and/or the RDFa/HTML/SemWeb-deployment WGs.

Action history siteData-36: Web site metadata improving on robots.txt, w3c/p3p and favicon etc. [link to this issue]

The architecture of the web is that the space of identifiers on an http web site is owned by the owner of the domain name. The owner, "publisher", is free to allocate identifiers and define how they are served.

Any variation from this breaks the web. The problem is that there are some conventions for the identifies on websites, that

and who knows what others. There is of course no list available of the assumptions different groups and manufacturers have used.

More in the original message from TBL .

Request concerning
URI space
Discussion history
24 Feb 2003, 8 Oct 2003, 5 Jan 2004, 12 Jan 2004, 22 Feb 2005, 13 Dec 2005, 2 May 2006, 9 Jan 2007
Transition history
raised on 10 Feb 2003 by Tim Berners-Lee , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 24 Feb 2003
Background, proposals, threads, notes
Action history abstractComponentRefs-37: Definition of abstract components with namespace names and frag ids [link to this issue]

Is it wise to use fragment IDs for identifying abstract components within a namespace, even though it is the most natural and convenient mechanism? Is there another mechanism that would be preferable?

Request concerning
Discussion history
24 Mar 2003, 14 Apr 2003, 5 May 2003, 23 Jun 2003, 8 Oct 2003, 20 Oct 2003, 2 Mar 2004, 22 Feb 2005, 3 May 2005, 16 Jun 2005, 21 Sep 2005, 25 Oct 2005, 1 Nov 2005, 16 May 2006, 14 Jun 2006
Transition history
raised on 3 Feb 2003 by Jonathan Marsh , on behalf of WSD WG
accepted on 24 Mar 2003
Background, proposals, threads, notes
Action history putMediaType-38: Relation of HTTP PUT to GET, and whether client headers to server are authoritative [link to this issue]

Some scenarios that this issue concerns:

Request concerning
Authority of client headers
Discussion history
16 Jun 2003, 22 Feb 2005, 26 Apr 2005, 3 May 2005, 21 Sep 2005, 6 Dec 2005, 28 Mar 2006, 11 Apr 2006
Transition history
raised on 6 May 2003 by Julian Reschke
accepted on 16 Jun 2003
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 18 Apr 2006

Approved TAG finding Authoritative Metadata .

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 19 Apr 2006
Action history rdfURIMeaning-39: Meaning of URIs in RDF documents [link to this issue]

TBL: "The community needs:

  1. A concise statement of the above architectural elements from different specs in one place, written in terms which the ontology community will understand, with pointers to the relevant specifications.
  2. Some outline guidance on specific questions brought up in email questions.

This includes:

There may be some need to clarify frequent misunderstandings by making some things clear."

Request concerning
Discussion history
18 Aug 2003, 15 Sep 2003, 22 Feb 2003, 21 Sep 2005, 13 Dec 2005
Transition history
raised on 13 Jul 2003 by Tim Berners-Lee , on behalf of Semantic Web CG
accepted on 18 Aug 2003
Background, proposals, threads, notes
Action history XMLVersioning-41: What are good practices for designing extensible XML languages and for handling versioning? [link to this issue]

What are good practices for designing extensible XML languages and for handling versioning?

Request concerning
XML
Discussion history
3 Nov 2003, 10 Nov 2003, 15 Nov 2003, 2 Mar 2003, 14 May 2004, 14 Feb 2005, 21 Sep 2005, 22 Sep 2005, 8 Nov 2005, 5 Dec 2005, 14 Feb 2006, 27 Feb 2006, 3 Mar 2006, 12 Jun 2006, 18 Jul 2006, 25 Jul 2006, 8 Aug 2006, 29 Aug 2006, 5 Sep 2006, 4 Oct 2006, 5 Oct 2006, 5 Oct 2006, 12 Dec 2006, 12 Dec 2006, 16 Apr 2007, 23 Apr 2007, 30 Apr 2007, 14 May 2007, 30 May 2007, 30 May 2007, 31 May 2007, 25 Jun 2007
Transition history
raised on 27 Jun 2003 by David Orchard , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 3 Nov 2003
Background, proposals, threads, notes
Action history ultimateQuestion-42: What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything. [link to this issue]

This "issue" collects all discussions relevant to Web architecture that are not directly related to any other issue.

Request concerning
The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Discussion history
15 Nov 2003
Transition history
raised on 15 Nov 2003 by Tim Berners-Lee , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 15 Nov 2003
Background, proposals, threads, notes
Action history xmlChunk-44: Chunk of XML - Canonicalization and equality [link to this issue]

The XML architecture has tended to be built according to a motto that all kinds of things are possible, and the application has to be able to chose the features it needs. This is fine when there are simply the XML toolset and a single "application". However, real life is more complicated, and things are connected together in all kinds of ways. I think the XML design needs to be more constraining: to offer a consistent idea of what a chunk of XML is across all the designs, so that the value of that chunk can be preserved as invariant across a complex system. Digital Signature and RDF transport are just intermediate parts of the design which need to be transparent. This required a notion of equality, and a related canonical serialization.

Request concerning
XML
Discussion history
2 Feb 2004, 2 Mar 2004, 12 May 2004, 18 Apr 2006, 12 Feb 2007
Transition history
raised on 12 Jan 2004 by TBL , on behalf of TAG
accepted on 2 Feb 2004
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 7 Mar 2007

xmlChunk-44 was an attempt to tackle deep equals for XML. The TAG now think we can't do better than XML Functions and Operators.

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 12 Jul 2007
Action history NW xml11Names-46: Impact of changes to XML 1.1 on other XML Specifications [link to this issue]

XML 1.1 makes essentially four changes to XML 1.0:

XML Schema 1.0 normatively refers to XML Namespaces 1.0 for the definition of QName and XML Namespaces 1.0 normatively refers to XML 1.0 for the definition of Name and XML 1.0 has fewer Name characters than XML 1.1.

That means that by a strict interpretation of the Recommendations, it is impossible to write an XML Schema for a document that uses the "new" Name characters. And by extension, it is impossible for an XPath expression or a protocol document to use XML 1.1.

Request concerning
XML 1.1
Discussion history
7 Jun 2004, 28 Jun 2004, 4 Oct 2005, 31 Jan 2006, 13 Dec 2006
Transition history
raised on 19 May 2004 by Mark Nottingham , on behalf of XML Protocol WG
accepted on 7 Jun 2004
Action history endPointRefs-47: WS-Addressing SOAP binding & app protocols [link to this issue]

From the commenters email :

"In a nutshell, it [ WS-Addressing - SOAP Binding ] requires that the URI in the "Address" component of a WS-Addressing EPR be serialized into a wsa:To SOAP header, independent of the underlying protocol. IMO, a Web-architecture consistent means of doing this would be to serialize it to the Request-URI when using SOAP with HTTP, or the "RCPT TO:" value when using SOAP with SMTP, etc.."

The issue has been raised with the relevant WG and declined .

The WS-Addressing SOAP Binding CR of 17 Aug 2005 still has this problem.

Request concerning
Web Services Addressing - SOAP Binding
Discussion history
24 Jan 2005, 29 Mar 2005, 5 Apr 2005, 19 Apr 2005, 22 Sep 2005, 4 Oct 2005, 11 Oct 2005, 18 Oct 2005, 25 Oct 2005, 1 Nov 2005, 22 Nov 2005, 6 Dec 2005, 24 Jan 2006, 28 Mar 2006, 14 Jun 2006, 24 Oct 2006, 11 Dec 2006, 12 Dec 2006, 9 Jan 2007
Transition history
raised on 3 Jan 2005 by Mark Baker
accepted on 24 Jan 2005
Background, proposals, threads, notes
Action history nameSpaceState-48: Adding terms to a namespace [link to this issue]

The question is about the identity of a namespace, in particular, the xml: namespace. One perspective is that the xml: namespace consists of xml:space, xml:lang, and xml:base (and no other names) because there was a point in time in which those where the only three names from that namespace that had a defined meaning. Another perspective is that the xml: namespace consists of all possible local names and that only a finite (but flexible) number of them are defined at any given point in time.

Request concerning
XML
Discussion history
22 Feb 2005, 8 Mar 2005, 22 Sep 2005, 6 Dec 2005, 13 Dec 2005, 20 Dec 2005, 18 Apr 2006, 25 Apr 2006
Transition history
raised on 9 Feb 2005 by Norman Walsh , on behalf of XML Core WG and XML Coordination Group
accepted on 22 Feb 2005
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 25 Apr 2006

Approved TAG finding The Disposition of Names in an XML Namespace .

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 5 May 2006
Action history URNsAndRegistries-50: URIs, URNs, "location independent" naming systems and associated registries for naming on the Web [link to this issue]

This issue covers a) URIs for namespace names b) URNs and other proposed systems for "location independent" names c) XML and other registries, and perhaps centralized vs. decentralized vocabulary tracking.

Request concerning
Discussion history
15 Mar 2005, 22 Mar 2005, 29 Mar 2005, 5 Apr 2005, 26 Apr 2005, 10 May 2005, 4 Oct 2005, 11 Oct 2005, 6 Dec 2005, 18 Apr 2006, 6 Jun 2006, 12 Jun 2006, 13 Jun 2006, 25 Jul 2006, 15 Aug 2006, 29 Aug 2006, 26 Sep 2006, 5 Oct 2006, 23 Jan 2007, 30 Apr 2007, 14 May 2007, 30 May 2007
Transition history
raised on 15 Mar 2005 by Henry Thompson
accepted on 15 Mar 2005
Background, proposals, threads, notes
Action history passwordsInTheClear-52: Sending passwords in the clear [link to this issue]

Many applications send passwords in the clear. This raises obvious security issues. The TAG should recommend not to send passwords in the clear and propose alternatives.

Request concerning
Discussion history
15 Jun 2005, 20 Sep 2005, 18 Apr 2006, 13 Jun 2006, 26 Sep 2006, 4 Oct 2006, 10 Oct 2006, 21 Nov 2006, 11 Dec 2006, 9 Jan 2007, 23 Jan 2007, 25 Jun 2007
Transition history
raised on 18 Apr 2006 by Dan Connolly
accepted on 18 Apr 2006
Background, proposals, threads, notes
Action history ER genericResources-53: Generic resources [link to this issue]

A generic resource is a conceptual resource which may stand for something which has different versions over time, different translations, and/or different content-type representations. How should one indicate the relationship between these?

Request concerning
Web resources
Discussion history
9 May 2006, 30 May 2006, 12 Jun 2006, 18 Jul 2006, 29 Aug 2006, 19 Sep 2006, 4 Oct 2006, 31 Oct 2006, 7 Nov 2006
Transition history
raised on 4 May 2006 by T. V. Raman
accepted on 30 May 2006
Background, proposals, threads, notes
agreed on 31 Oct 2006

See TAG finding On Linking Alternative Representations To Enable Discovery And Publishing .

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 31 Oct 2006
Action history TVR TagSoupIntegration-54: Tag soup integration [link to this issue]

Is the indefinite persistence of 'tag soup' HTML consistent with a sound architecture for the Web? If so, what changes, if any, to fundamental Web technologies are necessary to integrate 'tag soup' with SGML-valid HTML and well-formed XML?

Request concerning
Web resources
Discussion history
24 Oct 2006, 31 Oct 2006, 7 Nov 2006, 11 Dec 2006, 12 Dec 2006, 5 Feb 2007, 7 Mar 2007, 7 Mar 2007, 19 Mar 2007, 26 Mar 2007, 16 Apr 2007, 23 Apr 2007, 31 May 2007
Transition history
raised on 17 Oct 2006 by TAG
accepted on 24 Oct 2006
Background, proposals, threads, notes
Action history

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4