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

Showing content from https://www.w3.org/2003/08/04-tag-summary.html below:

Minutes of 4 August 2003 TAG teleconference

W3C | TAG | Previous: 28 Jul teleconf | Next: 18 August 2003 teleconf

Nearby: IRC | Teleconference details · issues list · www-tag archive

1. Roll call: SW (Chair), TB, CL, RF, NW, IJ (Scribe), TBL (end of call). Regrets: DO, DC, PC
2. Accepted the 21 Jul face-to-face meeting minutes.
3. The TAG did not accept the 28 Jul teleconf minutes (nobody had read them).
4. Accepted this agenda, but agreed to continue where Vancouver walkthrough of Arch Doc left off.
5. Next meeting: 18 August teleconf. Regrets: IJ, TBL. Possible regrets: DO, PC.
6. SW will be organizing a ftf meeting in Bristol 6-8 Oct, with teleconf link.

The primary focus of this call was on the 1 August 2003 Editor's Draft of the Arch Doc, including a walkthrough of those section of the Arch Doc that the TAG had not covered at the Vancouver ftf meeting.

Note that section numbers of these action items are with respect to the draft.

Completed actions:

• Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Revise text in section 2.1 about risk of false negatives in comparing URIs.
• Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Reword the good practice note with new term for "spelling" based on "character string".
• Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Prune instances of "scheme name" except when referring to string component before ":"; RF calls this "scheme component".
• Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Include POST (and other methods) as examples of deref methods at beginning of 2.5.
• Completed action TB 2003/07/21: Continue Oaxaca story for beginning of section on messages, showing GET (with details) and POST (with details). (Done)
• Completed action NW 2003/07/21: Rewrite 3.2.2.3 (Done)
• Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Produce Editor's Draft Weds or Thurs of next week.
• Completed action TB 2003/07/28: Propose text for architecture document that distinguishes "information resource" from other types of "resources". (Done)
• Completed action CL 2003/07/21: Redraw diagram showing relationship between URI/Resource/Representation with (1) English words (2) no more "isa" arrows; just label objects.(Done (png, svg))

Open action items:

• Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 3 (section number in 1 Aug draft). Section 3 is expected to be short.
• Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of "Conversations and State" into section to be produced by RF.
• Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about extensibility related to "when to tunnel".
• Action CL 2003/07/21: Create an illustration of two resources, one designated by URI without fragment, and one designated by same URI with fragment...
• Action IJ, CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.
• Action TBL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement to "URI persistence ...person's mailbox" in 2.6 and continue to revise TBL draft of section 2.6 based on TAG's 23 July discussion.
• Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5 showing examples of freenet and other systems.
• Action TB and CL 2003/07/21: Propose a replacement sentence in section 3.2.2.1 regarding advantages of text formats.

Action items related to SVG spec that have been transferred to the SVG issues list:

• Action CL 2003/07/21: For SVG 1.2, tighten up language regarding use of GET for a element/href attribute. Also, ensure that SVG 1.2 is clear on CE vs CTE

[Ian]

Review of effect of completed actions

2.1 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#identifiers-comparison

"Applications may apply rules beyond basic string comparison (e.g., for "http" URIs, the authority component is case-insensitive) to reduce the risk of false negatives and positives. Please refer to section 6.3 of [URI] for more information about reducing the risk of false positives and negatives.".

Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Reword the good practice note with new term for "spelling" based on "character string".

"URI characters: If a URI has been assigned to a resource, Web components SHOULD refer to the resource using the same URI, character for character."

IJ: What about using "Web component" instead of "agent" change?

CL: Seems ok to me.

TB: I think that's probably worth doing as well. I won't stand for the term human component! These are people!

Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Prune instances of "scheme name" except when referring to string component before ":"; RF calls this "scheme component".

Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Include POST (and other methods) as examples of deref methods at beginning of 2.5.

NW's new 4.6

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#composition

CL: Recall that I have an objection to the phrase "final form"

Continuing where we left off: 4.6

IJ: We last were talking about extensibility at ftf meeting.

TB: I am more and more nervous about 4.6 since topic of composition is new.

CL: I agree, but we need something to work with. We already have some (positive and negative) experience.

RF: What about putting this in the "future work" section?

TB: I think that it's fine to point out some of the known issues. The issues in XML are not yet worked out. Don't be too sanguine about expanding this much more than is already there.

[Chris]

unless its to enumerate more known problems

[Ian]

4.7 extensibility and versioning.

CL: Swap 4.6 and 4.7

TB: I agree.

NW: Yep

TB: I disagree with definition "A format is extensible if instances of the format can include terms from other vocabularies. " There is a lot more than than adding elements.

CL: There is ambiguity about word "Vocabulary."

[Chris]

by that definition xml is not extensible

[Ian]

NW: DO and I have a finding in the work on this. I propose that we leave this until the finding has moved along.

[Chris]

(which could be fine - xml is a user restrictable vocabulary)

[Ian]

TB: However, I think the second and third called out principles are excellent and I wouldn't want to lose them.

TB, SW: Delete first principles; it's subsumed.

IJ: How is your finding going in terms of defn of compatibility?

NW: More prose than algorithm.

[Chris]

instead of M and N, perhaps n, n+1, n-1 ?

[Ian]

IJ: But versions aren't required to be sequential to be compatible (or not).

4.8. Presentation, Content, and Interaction

CL: I am still working on text for this section. It will be a summary of long essay I previously sent.

4.9. Hyperlinks

NW: I'd like to change editorially "Allow Web-wide linking, not just internal document linking."

CL: Split in two.

TB: Yes, split. Does last good practice note belong here or in XML section?

NW: N3 uses qnames as well.

SW: Do we need to distinguish hyperlinking from other kinds of linking?

CL: Yes.

IJ: Do we have a defn of hyperlink v. link that is not a horrible rat hole?

TB, CL: No.

TB: We should ack the fact that much of this section that much of the text applies to hyperlinks in XML.

IJ: +1 to creating a generic hyperlink section and an xml-specific hyperlink section.

NW, TB, CL: Yes.

IJ: How does hyperlinking connect to "on the Web"?

[Chris]

are embedded links (images etc) hyperlinks

[Ian]

TB: I don't think we need to have a firm defn of hyperlink in this document.

CL: Are embedded images hyperlink? Are all hyper links user-activated?

[Chris]

are all hyperlinks user actuated?

[Ian]

NW: I share SW's concern. I'm happy to break 4.9 in two and take a stab at defining hyperlink as well.

TB: I think we can get away with "When you go and implement something you think is a hyperlink, do this..." and we'll be fine.

4.10. XML-Based Data Formats

CL: I don't like "XML-based".

TB: I have found no better term than XML-based. I suggest leaving title as is and define what we mean in the first paragraph.

CL: That's fine by me.

Action TB: Write a definition of "XML-based".

IJ: Does "XML Application" connote something different?

TB: Actually, more commonly it's an XML vocabularly.

[Chris]

I mainly want to exclude 'similar to' xml, like using * instead of " for delimiting attributes and saying the syntax is 'based on' xml

[Ian]

TB: In formal terms in the XML spec, "XML application" means anything that talks to an XML processor. So, SVG is an XML vocabulary not an XML application.

[Chris]

yes

[Ian]

4.10.1. When to Use an XML-Based Format

TB: Delete that note; this is not crucial to the arch of the web: "Which XML Specifications make up the XML Family?"

Resolved: Delete the note.

4.10.2. XML Namespaces

TB: We need a consistent formatting when we drop into story mode. Cite "title" element specifically.

IJ: I also deleted a lot of prose I found confusing. Any good practice notes belong here?

TB: We need a good practice note in 4.10.2: When designing a new XML vocabularly, put in its own namespace.

CL: Much more important for elements than attributes.

TB: Given that everyone is wrapping content in SOAP, not having a namespace is a problem.

CL: Formatting attribs in xsl:fo should have been given a namespace.

Action NW: Redraft 4.10.2 to include some good practice notes (e.g., use namespaces!)

4.10.3. Namespace Documents

[Chris]

fot attribute values, especially ones that are inherited

[Ian]

IJ: I added "machine-readable" to good practice note.

[Chris]

Dan googles on the namespace URI and gets back .....

[Ian]

RF: I think "machine-readable" is a meaningless statement.

IJ: In UAAG we talked about "content primarily intended for people" v. "primarily intended for processors"

RF: Say "optimized for machines."

CL: I think the "unattended" part is the key bit. A DTD is suitable for unattended processing.

IJ: What about "Optimized for processors"? I'd like to find a short phrase AND include "unattended" in a definition.

Action IJ: s/machine-readable/something like: optimized for processors, w/ defn that includes notion that it can be processed unattended (by a person).

4.10.4. Fragment identifiers and ID semantics

NW: Third para goes to some length to saqy that there is no semantics for +xml media types. We should note that that may change if RFC3023 changes. Allude to the fact that we may someday get there. In para starting "It is common practice...."; s/DTD validation/validation/

[Chris]

see finding on xmlid-32

[timbl_]

RRSAgent, pointer?

[RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2003/08/04-tagmem-irc#T20-14-10

[Norm]

s/DTD// and fix the grammar

:-)

[Chris]

type ID

[Ian]

Action NW: Rewrite para 4 of 4.10.4.

4.10.5. Media Types for XML

[Chris]

norm, see the canonical example

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!DOCTYPE foo [

<!ATTLIST foo partnum ID #IMPLIED> ]>

<foo partnum="i54321" bar="toto"/>

[Ian]

4.11. Future Directions for Representations and Formats

[Norm]

Editorially in 4.10.5, check markup for "text/*" in the good practice note

[Ian]

CL: Put 4.10.5 good practice note at the END of the section.

NW: Yes, much better.

CL: Also be more precise that intermediaries can only transcode in case of text/xml.

[Norm]

They can transcode text/*, technically, yes?

[Ian]

CL: Furthermore, append "and will cause the document to not be well-formed."

3. Interaction

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#interaction

[Norm]

There are several more places where I think <code> markup would improve things

[Ian]

CL: Please shorten 3.0.

IJ: It's all story.

CL: But it collects things and these need to be brough tout.

brought out. There's a diagram here: browser gets octets and media type; can interpret octets given media type. Talk about layers here.

IJ: Would these layer be important to the arch?

CL: Yes.

RF: "Some of the headers (for example, 'Transfer-encoding: identity', which indicates that no compression has been applied)" There is no "identity" encoding. You would simply not see any transfer-encoding header. That header field is not just for compression

IJ: What about "(e.g., Transfer-encoding)"?

RF: Yes, that's fine.

IJ: Other examples you'd like to see in the parens?

RF: No.

CL: I'm fine with only 'Transfer-encoding'.

SW: I am wondering whether we need more intro before the story.

IJ: What about putting 3.1 before the story?

CL: Yes, that lets you use the terms in the story.

RF: Para 3 of Interaction doesn't talk about resource header fields. E.g., "vary" is about the response, not the representation.

TBL: Yes, I think we should make that distinction.

[timbl_]

Message, Representation, and Resource

3 things

[Ian]

RF: There are always three things: rep metadata, res metadata, and message metadata.

IJ: Where should we talk about resource metadata?

RF: Etag is representation. Alternates is resource metadata

[timbl_]

Examples of Resource: Alternates, Vary

Examples of Representation; Etag

[Ian]

SW: Message contains data and metadata. There are three types of metadata (resource, msg, representation)

[timbl_]

1. Data 2. Metadata

[Ian]

IJ: Before we said that representation includes some of the representation metadata.

[timbl_]

2.1 message metadata 2.2. represtentaion metadat 2.3 resourcemetadata

[Chris]

message metadata is transitory

message metadata is clearly part of the interaction (only)

resource metadata is not about the representation, so its in the interaction section also

thus, only representation metadata is in the formats section

[Ian]

RF: I'm going to rewrite the whole section anyway...

TBL: There are more meanings than "about"; metadata describes relationships.
IJ: I'd prefer slightly longer terms than just "data" since that leads to "Which data? Message data or representation data?"

• whenToUseGet-7: 9 July 2003 draft of URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET and POST
  • DO said he had additional comments at 21 July 2003 ftf meeting.
  • See comments from Noah
• contentTypeOverride-24: 9 July 2003 draft of Client handling of MIME headers
  1. Comments from Roy on charset param
  2. Comments from Philipp Hoschka about usability issues when user involved in error correction
  3. Comments from Chris Lilley
• xmlIDSemantics-32:
  1. Chris Lilley draft finding.
  2. Action CL 2003/06/30: Revise this draft finding with new input from reviewers. 7 July Deadline.
• contentPresentation-26: Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a draft finding on content/presentation.
• metadataInURI-31: 8 July 2003 draft of "The use of Metadata in URIs"
  • Action DO 2003/07/07: Send rationale about why WSDL WG wants to peek inside the URI.
  • See also TB email on Apple Music Store and use of URI schemes instead of headers
• abstractComponentRefs-37
  • Action DO 2003/06/23: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask them for their analysis.
• Action IJ 2003/07/21: Update Deep linking finding (i.e., create a new revision) with references to German court decision regarding deep linking. No additional review required since just an external reference.
• Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn TB apple story into a finding.

• URIEquivalence-15
  • SW proposal: Track RFC2396bis where Tim Bray text has been integrated. Comment within the IETF process. Move this issue to pending state.
• IRIEverywhere-27
  • Action CL 2003/04/07: Revised position statement on use of IRIs.
  • Action TBL 2003/04/28: Explain how existing specifications that handle IRIs are inconsistent. TBL draft not yet available on www-tag.
  • See TB's proposed step forward on IRI 27.

• rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
  • Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema desideratum (RQ-23).
• 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.
• abstractComponentRefs-37(discussed above).
• putMediaType-38

Existing Issues:

• mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
• RDFinXHTML-35
• siteData-36
  • Action TBL 2003/02/24 : Summarize siteData-36

Possible New Issues

• Visibility of Web Services, raised by Mark Baker
• Character model conformance, raised by TBL
• Meaning of URIs in RDF documents, raised by TBL

• 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.
  • 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 Bray on the use of URNs for namespace names.
• 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?]
• 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.
• xlinkScope-23
  • See draft, and SW message to CG chairs.
  • Action CL 2003/06/30: Ping the chairs of those groups asking for an update on xlinkScope-23.
• binaryXML-30
  • Action TB 2003/02/17: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on adding to survey.
  • Action IJ 2003/07/21: Add link from issues list binaryXML-30 to upcoming workshop
  • Next steps to finding? See summary from Chris.
• 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.
• charmodReview-17
  1. Completed action IJ 2003/07/14: Move issue 17 to pending rather than resolved.
  2. Completed action DC: Remind I18N WG of what we are expecting regarding issue 17; send this on behalf of the TAG (Done).

• 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.

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