Re: [Minutes] 24 June 2002 TAG teleconference (Arch doc, qnameAsId-18, SOAP/WSDL/GET)

With regard to the URI discussions within the TAG I would like
to make sure that the discussions and RFC 2396 updates also include 
the URI-CG as well as take into account the URI IG's "URIs, URLs, and URNs: 
Clarifications and Recommendations 1.0". [1]

-MM

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/


On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 06:16:06PM -0400, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>     IJ: What term should "take precedence" in this
>     document? URI or URI Reference?
> 
>     TB: Depends on what you're doing. But "All
>     important refs identified by URI", not URI
>     reference.
>     IJ: I will fix this.
>     CL: As soon as you have content negotiation,
>     you need to know mime type of response before
>     you interpret fragment id's.
>     IJ: Could someone write a paragraph on URIs
>     and URI references?
>     RF: Do you want the politically accurate view
>     or the technical view?
>     TB: I think both are required to understand
>     what the right thing to do is.
>     (IJ: I will also look at DO's comments on the
>     arch doc.)
>     Action RF: Write a para on URIs and URI
>     references.
> 
>     RF: I will try to have this for next week, but
>     likely not ready by then.
> 
>  Digression into discussion of revisions to URI spec
> 
> [Ian]
>     RF: I am working on revising the URI spec
>     right now, with Larry Masinter and TBL when he
>     has time.
>     TB: Why are you editing it?
>     RF: Integrating corrections, inclusion of IPV6
>     format, inclusion of some I18N work (but
>     unclear how much). Discussion will take place
>     on uri@xxxxxxx This week's a good time to
>     bring forward your burning issues on URIs.
> 
>     IJ: Suggest alerting chairs that this work
>     going on.
>     RF: I will suggest that to Larry. TBL could
>     also do this.
> 
>  Returning to architecture document
> 
> [Ian]
>     TB: Important to point out that the term "URI
>     reference" conflates relative URIs and
>     fragment IDs.
> 
>     RF: Additional BNF terms is one suggested
>     improvement to the URI spec.
>     TB: That's how namespace names got to be URI
>     references. DC said we couldn't make up a new
>     construct that wasn't in the RFC...

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling        |      Vote Libertarian!       | urn:pin:1
michael@xxxxxxxxxx      |                              | http://www.neonym.net