W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > August 2004

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2004 August 25

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:02:25 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C030D0E@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: "XML Core WG" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 Jonathan  xx:10
 Daniel   xx:08

[10 organizations (10 with proxies) present out of 12]


Absent organizations
John Cowan (with regrets)
> 1. Accepting the minutes from the last two telcons [3] and
>    the current task status [2] (have any questions, comments,
>    or corrections ready by the beginning of the call).


> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia.
> 3. Problem with xml:space in the Schema document for the XML namespace
> Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org> sent us email on this at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Jul/0019
> Norm thinks Mimasa is correct; we should not provide a default for
> xml:space.  Glenn agrees.  Richard agrees.
> But Henry questioned our decision.  Norm and Henry discussed it
> a bit; Richard and Glenn were absent.
> Henry found that Mimasa was not correct about not being able
> to make xml:space fixed.  Henry replied at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Aug/0013
> But it remains open whether we should change the default (or
> change the fact that it is defaulted).
> ACTION to Henry:  Check his schema collection to see if anyone 
> is using xml:space in an interesting way and see if this leads
> us to want to change the current declaration of xml:space.


> 4. XML errata.  The published 1.0 errata document is [8], the
>    published 1.1 errata document is [9], and the NEW PUBLIC
>    Potential Errata (PE) document is [7]. 
> PE 130 Missing paren in section 5.2 in XML 1.1
> ----------------------------------------------
> Editorial.  We should add the missing paren (was in 3rd Ed).
> PE 131 Space or S in XML decl.
> ------------------------------
> Commentor says we use Space in the XML decl, but S elsewhere.
> Actually, XML decl is (correctly) using S, and S is just the 
> same as in
> XML 1.0.
> So the bug is that in SDDecl, it refers to x#20+ instead S:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml11-20040204/#NT-SDDecl
> We had CONSENSUS this was an editorial oversight, and that we should
> change x#20+ to S in the SDDecl production.
> ACTION to Francois:  Process both PEs as Errata as described above.


> 5. Namespaces in XML.
>   ACTION to Richard:  Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed.
> 6. Xinclude CR was published April 13 at:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-xinclude-20040413
>    The updated test suite cover page is at
>    http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/XInclude/ 
> The PR-ready draft is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/07/PR-xinclude/
> The public DoC (aka latest issues list) is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/07/ExIT-xinclude/issues.html
> We discussed the details of this document a bit and decided
> that we just had to touch on the "Reviewer reply unaddressed"
> ones, xi-2 and xi-12.
> xi-2 : Syntactically incorrect IRIs in href attributes
> ------------------------------------------------------
> We decided to leave IRI validation up to the implementation.
> ERH objects to doing so, but Daniel's implementation is a
> case in point where IRI validation is not feasible.
> So the WG reconfirms our previous decision.
> xi-12 : xml:lang implementation report
> --------------------------------------
> ERH would prefer that we drop the language property from 
> xinclude processing.  Specifically:
>   I see no need to introduce a new property for the element
>   information item to have the desired effect. It would be
>   much simpler and more consistent with existing specs and
>   APIs to define this purely in terms of attributes.
> The WG's understanding of the request from I18N and the TAG
> in this area leads us to reconfirm our previous decision.
> ACTION to Jonathan:  Augment the DoC to point to our 
> reconfirmations above.


> At 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Jul/0025 
> Richard had sent a format for submitting test reports and an XSLT 
> to convert the report to an HTML page.  He also included his actual
> results.
> Richard says he also has Elliotte's results.  Richard, how do 
> they look?

Richard put up results for ERH and himself:

> We still need implementation feedback from Daniel.
> ACTION to DV:  Provide a table giving results (using 
> Richard's files) of
> running the test suite on your implementation.

ACTION continued.

> ACTION to Paul:  Write a PR request once we are ready to exit CR.


IPR ptr should be http://www.w3.org/2002/08/xmlcore-IPR-statements

We don't have any tests for xml:lang, so we don't know if anyone
implemented it, but neither Richard nor DV has implemented it.
We're not sure if ERH has--we'll need to ask.

ACTION to Richard:  Add a test for xml:lang to the test suite.

ACTION to Paul:  Send email to ERH asking about his implementation
and xml:lang and accept/accept-language headers.

ACTION to DV:  Implement xml:lang.

ACTION to Jonathan/Norm:  Generate a diff.

ACTION to Paul:  Update status section, pubrules, etc.

> 7. xml:id.
> We should say that the values of xml:id must be
> Names according to the XML version of the document.
> ACTION: xml:id editors to update the draft to allow XML 1.0 and XML
>         1.1 Names as appropriate.
> Relaxing the constraint that there be one ID per element.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2004Apr/0012
> We want to make sure that the xml:id spec is agnostic wrt whether 
> there is more than one thing of type id on one elemnt, as this is 
> a property of the validation mechanism.  
> Currently, the spec says nothing in this regard, so it is, in fact,
> agnostic.  Therefore, we have no action.
> So the reply to the comment is that the xml:id spec has no such
> constraint, so there is nothing to relax.
> ACTION to DoC maintainer:  Record this resolution and reply to
> the commentor.
> ACTION to Norm:  Raise a new issue about whether we need to fix 
> the references property as far as the behavior when no xml:id 
> declaration is available.
> Henry points out that there is no mention of [references] in xml:id,
> but there probably should be.
> ERH asking for something simpler.
> ---------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2004Apr/0015
> We have thought about this a lot and can't think of anything
> simpler that works.  We need to work through the infoset, and
> we believe this is simpler than enumerating the behavior of
> all existing APIs and interfaces.
> Norm had a suggested rewording to simplify the spec (collapsing
> section 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and/or making them non-normative appendices).
> ACTION to Norm:  Produce such a draft after getting the latest
> sources from Daniel.
> Norm has collected the xml:id issues at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xmlid/issues.xml

and put a new version of the draft at

P3P/EPAL Privacy 
Commentor seems to misunderstand the spec, as we cannot see
what it has to do with privacy.

CONSENSUS that no action is required.

ID Strictness 
Commentor figures that non-validating parsers shouldn't have 
to check for xml:id validity.

Currently, conformance to xml:id does require non-validating 
parsers to check for xml:id validity; of course, no parser is 
required to conform to xml:id.

We discussed this for some time.  

ACTION to Richard:  Send email outlining our options.

Relies on infoset 
[didn't get here]

> [1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core
> [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#tasks
> [3] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Aug/0014
> [7]
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/02/proposed-xml10-3e-and-xml11-errata.html
> [8] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata
> [9] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V11-1e-errata
> [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2004AprJun/0058.html 
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 16:04:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:33 UTC