This is the list of general issues the TAG has considered
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This list remains as a HISTORICAL REFERENCE ONLY.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 .
Tracker page URIs for TAG issues are of the form http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/<number> where <number> is the numeric value at the end of each issues' nick name. For example, the tracker page for httpRange-14 is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/14 .
See the TAG issue tracking policy (and tips for getting the TAG's attention). See also Dan Connolly suggested tactics for addressing new issues .
For more information about the TAG, refer to the TAG Home Page .
Color key: error warning note
| Id:Title | State | Type | Category | Open actions | Ack. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| w3cMediaType-1 : Should W3C WGs define their own media types? | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| customMediaType-2 : What commonality should there be among W3C media types? | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| nsMediaType-3 : Relationship between media types and namespaces? | subsumed [mixedNamespaceMeaning-13] | request | |||
| xformsReview-4 : Request to review XForms Last Call document | declined | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| uncefactLiaison-5 : Invitation to create liaison with UN/CEFACT ebTWG Architecture Group | declined | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 : Algorithm for creating a URI from a QName? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| 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?) | accepted | request | No response to reviewer | ||
| namespaceDocument-8 : What should a "namespace document" look like? | no decision (accepted) | request |
| ||
| uriMediaType-9 : Why does the Web use mime types and not URIs? | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| xmlSW-10 : Should next version of XML be XML 1.0 - DTDs + namespaces + xml:base + the infoset? | declined | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| soapRPCURI-11 : What is the appropriate relationship between SOAP RPC and the Web's reliance on URIs? | declined | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| xmlAsText-12 : Do proposed changes to XML 1.1 ignore Unicode constraints? | declined | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 : What is the meaning of a document composed of content in mixed namespaces? | subsumed [mixedUIXMLNamespace-33, xmlFunctions-34, RDFinXHTML-35] | request | |||
| httpRange-14 : What is the range of the HTTP dereference function? | agreed | request |
| No reply from reviewer | |
| URIEquivalence-15 : When are two URI variants considered equivalent? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| HTTPSubstrate-16 : Should HTTP be used as a substrate protocol? Does W3C agree with RFC 3205? | no decision (deferred) | request | |||
| charmodReview-17 : Request to review "Character Model for the Web" Last Call document | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| qnameAsId-18 : Is it ok to use Qnames as Identifiers? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| formattingProperties-19 : Reuse existing formatting properties/names, coordinate new ones | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| errorHandling-20 : What should specifications say about error handling? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| RFC3023Charset-21 : Do all "shoulds" of RFC 3023 section 7.1 apply? | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| augmentedInfoset-22 : Infoset augmentation outside of PSVI? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| xlinkScope-23 : What is the scope of using XLink? | agreed | request | No response to reviewer | ||
| contentTypeOverride-24 : Can a specification include rules for overriding HTTP content type parameters? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| deepLinking-25 : What to say in defense of principle that deep linking is not an illegal act? | agreed | request | Agreement | ||
| contentPresentation-26 : Separation of semantic and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is architecturally sound. | agreed | request | No response to reviewer | ||
| IRIEverywhere-27 : Should W3C specifications start promoting IRIs? | no decision (accepted) | request |
| ||
| fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML | agreed | request | No response to reviewer | ||
| xmlProfiles-29 : When, whither and how to profile W3C specifications in the XML Family | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| binaryXML-30 : Standardize a "binary XML" format? | no decision (deferred) | request | |||
| metadataInURI-31 : Should metadata (e.g., versioning information) be encoded in URIs? | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| xmlIDSemantics-32 : How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD? | agreed | request | No response to reviewer | ||
| mixedUIXMLNamespace-33 : Composability for user interface-oriented XML namespaces | no decision (deferred) | request | |||
| xmlFunctions-34 : XML Transformation and composability (e.g., XSLT, XInclude, Encryption) | no decision (accepted) | request |
| ||
| RDFinXHTML-35 : Syntax and semantics for embedding RDF in XHTML | no decision (deferred) | request |
| ||
| siteData-36 : Web site metadata improving on robots.txt, w3c/p3p and favicon etc. | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| abstractComponentRefs-37 : Definition of abstract components with namespace names and frag ids | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| putMediaType-38 : Relation of HTTP PUT to GET, and whether client headers to server are authoritative | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| rdfURIMeaning-39 : Meaning of URIs in RDF documents | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| URIGoodPractice-40 : What are good practices for URI construction? | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| XMLVersioning-41 : What are good practices for designing extensible XML languages and for handling versioning? | no decision (accepted) | request |
| ||
| ultimateQuestion-42 : What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything. | no decision (accepted) | request |
| ||
| DerivedResources-43 : How are secondary resources derived? | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| xmlChunk-44 : Chunk of XML - Canonicalization and equality | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| mediaTypeManagement-45 : What is the appropriate level of granularity of the media type mechanism? | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| xml11Names-46 : Impact of changes to XML 1.1 on other XML Specifications | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| endPointRefs-47 : WS-Addressing SOAP binding & app protocols | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| nameSpaceState-48 : Adding terms to a namespace | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| schemeProtocols-49 : Relationship of URI schemes to protocols and operations | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| URNsAndRegistries-50 : URIs, URNs, "location independent" naming systems and associated registries for naming on the Web | no decision (accepted) | request |
| ||
| standardizedFieldValues-51 : Squatting on link relationship names, x-tokens, registries, and URI-based extensibility | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| passwordsInTheClear-52 : Sending passwords in the clear | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| genericResources-53 : Generic resources | agreed | request | No reply from reviewer | ||
| TagSoupIntegration-54 : Tag soup integration | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| utf7Encoding-55 : Security issues with incorrect metadata | no decision (accepted) | request | |||
| abbreviatedURIs-56 : Abbreviating URIs in Web Languages | no decision (accepted) | request |
|
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?
For example, should all these custom XML types being registered be required to use the RFC 3023 +xml convention? If so, should all the SHOULDs of section 7.1 be followed? etc.. The question isn't restricted to RFC 3023 issues though. There may be value to other common features between types.
See resolution for w3cMediaType-1 . See changes from Chris Lilley regarding RFC 3023 .
What is, or what should be, the relationship between a media type and an XML namespace?
Cf. issue mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 .
Broad request to review XForms Last Call document.
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.
TAG suggests that request be redirected to new Web Services Architecture Working Group
"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)."
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 .
Accepts the situation
Propose TAG response to XML Schema desideratum ( RQ-23 )
Henry Thompson is aware of this issue.
Revise Qname finding to say (1) if you use qnames, provide a mapping to URIs and (2) don't define an attribute that can take either a URI or a Qname since they are not syntactically distinguishable.
Proposed revision of finding. However, as discussed at 5 Jan 2004 teleconf , NW expects to produce a new revision based on other input.
Subsumed by action for revision related to qnameAsId-18 .
Point WSDL WG to resolution of issue 6.
Propose some extra text for section 4.5 that hypertext agents often follow an IGNORE rule and this often results in incompatible behavior. Ignore applied to fragid interpretation.
This was too late for Last Call Arch Doc.
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?"
URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET .
Acknowledged by DanC by virtue of WG agreement
Reopening the issue as an umbrella (together with issue endPointRefs-47 ) for discussing submission WS-Transfer .
Provide TAG with pointers into WS specs where issue of safe operations is manifest.
See WSDL WG's issue 117 .
Ask WSDL WG to look at finding; ask them if marking operations as safe in WSDL is one of their requirements.
Request to WS Desc WG Chair to ensure that this on their WG's issues list.
See WSDL WG's issue 117 and decision from WSDL WG
Thank the WSDL 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
See email to WSDL WG
Completed
Noah and Dave to write a position paper outline for the TAG by the 18th of Dec. 2006.
Completed
Stuart to respond to Jacek and Jonathan wrt whenToUseGet-7 and WSDL.
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.
Prepare finding to answer this issue, pointing to the RDDL Note. See comments from Paul regarding TB theses. Per 23 Feb 2004 teleconf , modified into an action to produce a bulleted list of points.
Add "Hello World" example to next draft of RDDL Spec (i.e., to edited version of RDDL draft 4 ). See also Proposal for RDDL to RDF mapping from DC
Produce schemaware for RDDL spec once TAG has consensus on the syntax.
Continue working on draft and to get statement from Jonathan re: persistence at rddl.org
Add pointer to previous syntax in the Note
follow up on noah's message on ns name. Reconfirmed on 10 Jan 2006 .
draft a section on using XHTML 1.x (not RDDL) with GRDDL and relax-ng
DanC has sent a note "a usps namespace document using plain XHTML and GRDDL".
track progress of #int bug 1974 in the XML Schema namespace document in the XML Schema WG. Confirmed 5 Oct 2006 .
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-23
ask for "default nature" to be changed to "implicit nature" in RDDL spec
The RDDL spec was fixed .
propose to Jonathan Borden that he changes to using a file of Natures. Confirmed on 14 Nov 2006 .
Provide a set of test cases of ways in which RDDL is actually used.
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-21
Start an ontology including docns/documentElementNamespace.
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-22
Media types are not first-class objects on the Web, or are they?
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.
Propose CL's three changes to registration process to Ned Freed.
Should next version of XML be XML 1.0 - DTDs + namespaces + xml:base + the infoset?
What is the appropriate relationship between SOAP RPC and the Web's reliance on URIs?
Do proposed changes to XML 1.1 ignore Unicode constraints?
XML Core WG is aware of these issues. Refer to draft response from David Orchard
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.
Split into three smaller issues: mixedUIXMLNamespace-33 , xmlFunctions-34 , and RDFinXHTML-35
TBL's argument the HTTP URIs (without "#") should be understood as referring to documents, not cars.
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:
Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document.s
Proposed text, resolution, new issue
Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document.s
Proposed text, resolution, new issue
Rhys to consider and draft a finding around the issues raised by httpRange-14.
Email announcing first public draft from Rhys
Rhys to revise Dereferencing HTTP URIs finding in response to F2F discussion. Continued: 9 July 2007
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-6 and to issue HttpRedirections-57
Stuart to review "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
Review posted to www-tag .
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?
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.
Track RFC2396bis where Tim Bray text has been integrated. Comment within the IETF process.
SW believes RFC2396 largely incorporates the necessary text; see his email for details.
TB's text successfully incorporated.
Review RFC2396 bis (current Editor's Draft) in preparation for IETF/W3C coordination meeting 6 Feb.
TBL reported that he sent comments to RF about the RFC and Roy acknowledged having received them.
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."
The TAG decided to defer this issue pending any attempt to enforce RFC3205.
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
Closed as issue is deferred.
Write descriptive paragraph explaining this issue's state.
Roy reported on his discussion at the IETF meeting.
Request to review "Character Model for the Web" Last Call document
Comments sent by Norm to the I18N comments list and reminder from Dan Connolly . See also Comments from CL . See other TAG resolutions regarding this issue in 3 Jun minutes .
Follow up with I18N folks on status of TAG's charmod comments. See Mail from DC to I18N WG in light of new Charmod draft
SW has discussed this with new I18N chair. SW invited I18N reps to participate in a TAG teleconf, probably in Dec 2003. At 15 March 2004 teleconf , SW took an additional action to request a two-week extension for TAG comments.
SW's action, by virtue of the TAG agreeing to proposals from CL and DC, seems to have been completed.
Review charmod language re: reference to Unicode std.
Review from Tim Bray
Pull out items from I18N WG response to TAG issues for meeting discussion.
Summary of position on I18N WG replies.
CL to respond to I18N WG per his proposal.
Respond to I18N WG per previous proposal.
This action has been completed and replaced by an action assigned 22 March.
Look at I18N issue C127 : "Say that the IRI form is used in the document instance and the hexified URI form when it goes over the wire"
Suggest wording to I18N WG regarding C068.
Write up TAG's complete LC comments and send them to the I18N WG (cc'ing www-tag).
Is it ok to use Qnames as Identifiers?
Finding: Using QNames as Identifiers
Ask the Schema WG to review the draft finding.
Ask the Schema WG to review the draft finding.
See revised finding Using QNames as Identifiers .
Revise 6 Jan 2004 draft finding for review and possible approval by TAG.
See revised finding Using QNames as Identifiers .
Review 14 Jan draft of Qname Finding .
Dropped and finding accepted.
Review 14 Jan draft of Qname Finding .
Dropped and finding accepted.
Review 14 Jan draft of Qname Finding .
TBL's comments taken into account and finding accepted.
Reuse existing formatting properties/names, coordinate new ones
Finding: Consistency of Formatting Property Names, Values, and Semantics
What should specifications say about error handling?
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.
Write text to reviewer about the TAG's decision on this issue.
Email sent to reviewer.
Do all "shoulds" of RFC 3023 section 7.1 apply?
TAG Finding: Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use
So I recommend a TAG finding along the following lines:
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."
Acknowledged by TB by virtue of WG agreement
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.
Paragraph 4.5.2 of Web Architecture closes the issue. See also draft of XML Linking Language (XLink) Version 1.1 .
Ping the chairs of those groups asking for an update on xlinkScope-23.
Sent emails to chairs of HTML WG and XML CG.
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.
The 3 Dec 2003 Editor's Draft of the Architecture Document accurately represents the TAG's position on the authoritative nature of server messages.
Acknowledged by TBL by virtue of WG agreement
Produce a new draft of the finding that takes into account comments from reviewers on MIME finding.
10 Dec 2003 Draft , 27 Jan 2004 Draft . See comments from Stuart . See 18 Feb 2004 Draft
TAG accepted 18 Feb 2004 draft. IJ will publish as accepted finding.
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.
Accepted Draft finding from TB
Acknowledged by TB by virtue of WG agreement
Take back to Comm Team publicity of this finding.
TAG discussed this issue with Janet Daly at ftf meeting in Japan.
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.
Section 4.3 of Web Architecture closes the issue.
Talk with others about aspects of this finding and revise it.
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.
Revise position statement on use of IRIs.
This action has been completed and replaced by virtue of the action assigned to CL on 22 March .
Explain how existing specifications that handle IRIs are inconsistent. TBL draft not yet available on www-tag.
Merged into tracker ACTION-24
with Norm report the Namespaces/URI/IRI discussion to XML Core.
DanC to ask TimBL whether XQuery and XML Namespaces 1.1 address IRIEverywhere to his satisfaction, noting Mappings and identity in URIs and IRIs .
TimBL to clarify http://www.w3.org/2003/04/iri , perhaps by using N3
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-24
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.
Summarize resolution.
Well past sell by date
monitor and bring back up when time is appropriate
dropped by chair
When, whither and how to profile W3C specifications in the XML Family
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.
check status of XMLProfiles-29 with Paul Grosso
Dropped by chair (overtaken bye events)
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.
W3C has chartered the XML Binary Characterization Working Group to address this issue. The TAG anticipates reviewing the WG's deliverables in this area.
Write to www-tag with his thoughts on adding to survey.
TB said he had nothing to add to the survey.
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:
See resolution .
Produce a revision of this finding based on Vancouver ftf meeting discussion.
Send rationale about why WSDL WG wants to peek inside the URI.
Make progress on metadataInURI-31 with Noah
ER and TVR to review draft finding on Authoritative Metadata
produce new version of The use of Metadata in URIs
Noah to produce final draft of metadataInURI-31 by 11 August 2006
Add security section on risks of serving executables as .jpeg to metadataInURI draft. Confirmed on 4 Oct 2006 .
Review security section on risks of serving executables as .jpeg to metadataInURI draft.
Review security section on risks of serving executables as .jpeg to metadataInURI draft. Confirmed on 14 Nov 2006 .
Rework metadataInURI 1st example to be more explicit as per Tim's suggestion, and update GPN per Dan's suggestion.
Seek a copy of the official court record of the UK case on ../../ etc.
Noah to update status to make metadataInURI an approved finding.
announce metadataInURI draft once it's in final form.
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.
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.
xml:id Version 1.0 is a Recommendation
Point Core WG to CL finding once made public.
NW: I can find no record of having completed this action, but I believe that I did and cite[2] the pointer from the XML Core WG home page as evidence that I did.
Raised by the TAG as an offshoot of mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 .
Pend this issue until significant progress is made by the W3C Compound Document Formats Working Group in a public working draft.
Review CDF requirements and report back.
review CDF requirements and report back
Raised by the TAG as an offshoot of mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 .
with help from HT, produce a draft finding on XML functions in January
summarize history of DTD/namespace/mimetype version practice, including XHTML, SOAP, and XSLT. Confirmed on 11 Dec 2006 .
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-25
write a short email to make his point so we capture this for future
create a draft finding on xmlFunctions-34 to the working group by the 8th of Feb. 2007.
review Henry's draft.
Withdrawn pending a new draft.
review Henry's draft.
Withdrawn pending a new draft.
SKW to send comments on urnsAndRegistries draft
Email review sent
Henry to prepare new draft of xmlFunctions-34 by mid-July
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-26
Raised by the TAG as an offshoot of mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 .
The TAG decided to defer this issue pending work by the GRDDL WG and/or the RDFa/HTML/SemWeb-deployment WGs.
State the issue with a reference to XML Core work. See email from TimBL capturing some of the issues.
DanC to ask Mimasa and Mark Birbeck about feasability of using substitution groups in XHTML modularization, cc public-xml-versioning
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-27 and moved under XMLVersioning-41
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 .
Refine strawman based on 8 Oct 2003 meeting and draft new finding. Reconfirmed at 5 Jan 2004 teleconf with due date 7 Jan. . Agreed to add use cases to finding at 12 Jan 2004 teleconf .
Proposal
Propose an example of a site description.
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?
Write up resolution from 8 Oct 2003 meeting and include in revised finding on this topic.
Revise draft finding based on comments at 20 Oct teleconf.
IJ published this from material sent by DO to IJ privately on 30 Oct 2003.
seek clarification about http://example.org/TicketAgent.wsdl20#wsdl.interface(TicketAgent)
Some scenarios that this issue concerns:
Approved TAG finding Authoritative Metadata .
prepare putMediaType-38 for further discussion
reopening discussion.
update Authoritative Metadata finding to include resolution of putMediaType-38. Reconfirmed 8 Nov 2005 .
Authoritative Metadata finding updated.
produce a new version of the finding Authoritative Metadata by the end of the year
Authoritative Metadata finding updated.
Propose disclaimer and discuss with Roy.
TBL: "The community needs:
This includes:
There may be some need to clarify frequent misunderstandings by making some things clear."
Notify the SW CG that we talked about rdfURIMeaning-39 and didn't decide to do anything now
Mail sent to Semantic Web Coordination Group.
Some issues:
Draft a finding for this issue. Reconfirmed 21 Sep 2005 .
consider noting in finding on good uri practices that gooduri#xmlname is a useful pattern because it can be used easily in RDF
What are good practices for designing extensible XML languages and for handling versioning?
Propose shortened version of DO/NW proposed text
Revised text
Propose revision of IJ proposal that better addresses NW and DO concerns.
Part of 11 Nov 2003 Editor's Draft
Text reviewed, edited at FTF meeting in Japan.
Suggest changes to section about extensibility related to "when to tunnel".
contextualize his scenarios, such as more on what is happening with SOAP and WSDL.
Update finding with ext/vers
with NM continue and extrapolate the versioning work DO et al have been doing already, updating the terminology section. Reconfirmed 5 Dec 2005 , 14 Feb 2006 , 12 Jun 2006 .
derive RDF/RDFS/OWL version of terminology from whiteboard / diagram . Reconfirmed 8 Nov 2005
make sure that what he is doing with ontology of XML infoset fits with what DanC is doing on ontology of Language etc. Reconfirmed on 12 Jun 2006
update extensibility finding with the result of Edinburgh F2F discussion and related diagrams. Reconfirmed 8 Nov 2005
produce a new draft of his versioning finding by the end of the year
provide two diagrams: one XML-ignorant, one XML-aware
Write to www-tag about CSS versioning being a problem "levels". Reconfirmed 12 Jun 2006 , 5 Oct 2006
Look at the document and see if it is good for informing on this SMIL problem of multiple namespaces. Reconfirmed 12 Jun 2006
Review definitions of partial understanding, backward compatible, and forward compatible. Progress report , confirmed 5 Oct 2006 , 9 July 2007 .
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-4
Henry to extend his paper to a definition of monotonicity and its relevance to our versioning finding.
Capture UML diagram for the minutes.
Produce some information about NVDL for the finding. Continued 9 July 2007
Email about NVDL and versioning.
Henry to unearth thread in which he and Robin Berjon discussed XML versioning
Dave Orchard to draft discussion of using substitution groups for examples like HTML <p> mixed content and/or <td> content.
Email from David Orchard "Use of Substitution Groups" take 2
Email from David Orchard "Use of Substitution Groups" take 2.1
Norm to review http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-xml for discussion on 14 May telcon.
Email from Norm "(Partial) review of Versioning XML"
dorchard to produce revised Versioning-part1 and Versioning-XML for May 18th
Email from Dave announcing new drafts.
NDW to note a problem near webarch/#pr-version-info in the errata. Continued: 9 July 2007 .
Errata message from Norm
NM to draft a blog item for review and, pending creation of a TAG blog mechanism, post it. Continued: 9 July 2007 .
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-28
NM to write up his paper comments on extensibility and versioning Continued: 9 July 2007 .
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-29
Dave Orchard to revise Versioning Findings in response to F2F discussions.
Continuation:David to update all 3 documents in versioning finding (by mid-July2007)
This "issue" collects all discussions relevant to Web architecture that are not directly related to any other issue.
HT, VQ to review the primer (getting into RDF & Semantic Web using N3)
Dropped by chair
Dropped by chair
Recommend intro to Dretske thought
Dropped by chair
TBL and NW to write a draft of Nadia and Dirk first semantic web book
dropped by chair
Write a report on the state of the art authentication in the web.
Presentation at Edinburgh f2f, see also minutes of 5 Jul 05
Withdrawn as of DC's report on the W3C workshop on security .
Draft "Dont use passwords in the clear". See minutes of 5 Jul 05
Obsoleted in favor of Ed's action of 18 Apr 06 under passwordsInTheClear-52 .
Review draft state finding for 9 May.
Contact Misha to follow up on f2f discussion on CURIEs at AC meeting
Invite a DD WG person to a TAG meeting to discuss DDR requirements
Dropped by chair (overtaken bye events)
Revise CSCP (Cookies, Shopping Carts, Personalization, etc) in State finding. Confirmed 26 Sep 2006 .
Dropped by chair
Review new version of state finding when it comes out. Confirmed 26 Sep 2006 .
Withdrawn pending a new draft.
Review new version of state finding when it comes out
Withdrawn pending a new draft.
draft a very short email suggesting that in general its good [using media types that aren't yet registered but used]
Redraft [position on unregistered mime types], forward to AB unless unresolved negative comments from TAG members
With Norm, draft semantic web architecture stories and such.
Will try to outline or sketch a story.
dropped by chair
Tim and Norm to produce a new draft of "Data on the Web" by end of January 2007.
droppped by chair
Stuart to contact the Semantic Web Deployment and HTML WG chairs for an update on the status of this document and to encourage them to make it public.
Email to HTML-WG and SWD-WG chairs and team-contacts requesting visibility of CURIE WD
HST to circulate a candidate description to [email protected] [to frame a distinct topic/issue on CURIE].
Noah to create a new draft on self-describing Web by 23rd for review at F2F
Noah to revise Self-Describing Web finding in response to F2F discussion.
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-30
NM to contact Don Brutzman to query about possible contacts about naming in V-Ws and integration with the Web.
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-2
How are secondary resources derived? The TAG discussed the case of parse='xml' and fragment identifiers in XInclude.
Write to David Orchard saying that XInclude no longer uses frag ids and the TAG is unable to construct from its meeting record what the issue was. We will discuss this further if we get help, but otherwise expect to close without action.
NW reports that he has sent mail; awaiting reply.
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.
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.
Summarize xmlChunk-44, solicit input from www-tag.
The xmlChunk-44 problem statement (resend)
Chair declared closed.
Coordinate joint meeting with XML Core, notably around xmlChunk-44.
Tuesday, 4 March liaison with XML Core .
Chair declared closed.
Write up a named equivalence function based on today's discussion (e.g., based on infoset, augmented with xml:lang/xml:base, not requiring prefixes, etc.).: Write up a named equivalence function based on today's discussion (e.g., based on infoset, augmented with xml:lang/xml:base, not requiring prefixes, etc.).
See email for details of proposal.
Overtaken by closure of issue.
Norm to review draft finding on xmlChunk-44 to see whether issue can be closed and finding approved.
Overtaken by closure of issue.
Norm to mark as abandoned the finding on deep equals and announce xmlChunk-44 is being closed without further action, with reason
Details in agenda .
The TAG raised this issue to discuss issues such as paramterization of media type strings to provide additional granularity for different format versions.
Write draft finding on this issue.
check with CDF WG to see how they have solved media type issue(s) and if they have more details
Dropped by chair (overtaken bye events)
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.
Forward proposal to the XML CG.
See section 5.4 of the XML CG minutes .
check on current status of issue xml11Names-46 with XML CG
bring us back to xml11Names-46 after the XML Schema WG publishes its expected Last Call WD.
Find a test case; reminds self to check with Henry for the Ice Cream example.
Test case email from Norm
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.
Inform WS-Addressing WG Chair ( Mark Nottingham ) that we added a new issue and that we would like to discuss it.
draft something indicating the issues with EPR and potential solutions
invite Mark Baker to future telcon to discuss his concern
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.
Approved TAG finding The Disposition of Names in an XML Namespace .
NW to announce TAG's acknolwedgement of issue nameSpaceState-48
NW to work with HT, DO on namespaceState-48
provide a draft of new namespace policy doc ( http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri ) and start discussion on www-tag
New namespace policy document published.
apply changes to nameSpaceState-48 document and recirculate for comments
NW has published a revised finding .
make the changes, publish the finding , and post to www-tag
NW has updated and published The Disposition of Names in an XML Namespace .
There are many situations in which there appeared to be confusion in the Web community regarding the architectural relationship between URI schemes and network protocols.
Noah to send announcment note to www-tag to announce SchemesProtocols-49 issue and gather feedback
Noah to figure out what to do next on SchemesProtocols-49
produce a new version of URI Schemes and Web Protocols . Confirmed 26 Sep 2006 .
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.
Note to www-tag to announce URNsAndRegistries-50
Henry and David to draft initial finding on URNsAndRegistries-50
Henry and David to update draft finding URNs, Namespaces and Registries . Confirmed 26 Sep 2006 , 5 Oct 2006 , 23 Jan 2007 .
DO done and HT overtaken by more recent actions ie. action to revise from May 2007 F2F.
DanC to find timbl's draft, give it to Ivan Herman in preparation for HCLSIG meeting in Amsterdam.
DanC to look for an example of commercial motivation for alternatives to DNS.
DO to explore the space of external registries and to post to the tag member list.
"XRI Business environment" email from David.
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-32
Henry to revise URNsAndRegistries-50 finding in response to F2F discussion.
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-33
Since short strings are scarce resources shared by the global community, fair and open processes should be used to manage them. A pattern that I'd like to see more of is
Lately I'm seeing quite the opposite.
Nearby issues:
DanC to introduce new issue standardizedFieldValues-51
write an update on issue standardizedFieldValues-51 and microformat
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.
Ed to communicate new issue and produce first draft finding. Reconfirmed 18 Jul 2006 : publish "No passwords in the clear" by Aug 8th 2006. Confirmed 26 Sep 2006 .
Vincent to open the issue on the issues list
revise "passwords in the clear" in light of Vancouver discussion.
publish update in one week for discussion in two weeks 31st Oct 06.
Produce a new version with these changes.
Alert Web Security Context Working Group (chair Mary Ellen Zurko) to content of passords in clear draft, to negotiate a review by them, and to the fact that we are working toward publication.
Send email about onsubmit hooking via javascript and its impact on PWintheclear to www-tag.
Stuart to summarize discussion to MEZ and make plans for further progress.
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?
See TAG finding On Linking Alternative Representations To Enable Discovery And Publishing .
Draft a rough finding on Single URI, Multiple content for review at the June f2f.
Revise genericResources draft, incorporating resource/representation, complete 2.4.x story better, emphasize discoverability, incorporate DO's comments, attempt best practice draft 3.
Publish new version of Generic Resources by Aug 8th 2006
Produce a new revision of generic-Resources-53 by 15 Sep 2006
Produce proposed final genericResources draft for approval at Vancouver F2F
Update Abstract of genericResource draft, add item about search, address the rel='generic' question, deal with the media type issue as discussed in Vancouver.
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?
Propose description of TagSoupIntegration-54
T.V. Raman to draft initial discussion material on tag soup for discussion on 26 March, draft on the 19th or so.
Wroking document from Boston F2F.
Security concerns with browsers sniffing unlabelled UTF7 encoding
Create issue in list and announce it.
Do the expected benefits of CURIEs outweigh the potential costs in introducing a third syntax for identifiers into the languages of the Web?
This issue continues a thread of discussion that originated under ultimateQuestion-42 .
DC to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0037 with SPARQL QNames and other details.
Transferred to Stuart
Look at the difference between QNAME in XML and SPARQL
[Aside theses are the closest references the chair was able to find to the transfer of this action item]
Tracking transferred to tracker ACTION-34
Last update: $Date: 2011/08/19 20:30:05 $
This page was generated as part of the Extensible Issue Tracking System (ExIT)
Copyright © 2003, 2004 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.