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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2004 December 8

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:30:03 -0500
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C0301F1214B@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
December 8, from
          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
          16:00-17:00 UTC
          16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
          17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#.
We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 .

See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents
and other information.  If you have additions to the agenda, please
email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon.

Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and
completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it
at the beginning of the call.

Norm sends regrets; Paul will chair.

1. Accepting the minutes from the last telcon [3] and
   the current task status [2] (have any questions, comments,
   or corrections ready by the beginning of the call).

2. Miscellaneous administrivia.

The next W3C Technical Plenary Week will be 28 February 2005
through 4 March 2005:

ACTION: Norm to coordinate a liaison.

2.5. XForms WG Note on xml-stylesheet and XForms.

See the draft Working Group Note at

See the thread starting at
especially Norm's message at

See also JohnC's comments at:
where he argues it is reasonable to treat this as a stylesheet
and raises the issue on how to recognize things via the MIME type.

Arnaud would like to know more about the motivation and
why they are using the xml-stylesheet PI instead of
something else.

Richard initially agreed with Norm's comment, but now he feels
that what JohnC said makes some sense.

we've been told the Forms WG has withdrawn the Note.

Instead, they will be submitting a Note that suggests a 
new "xml-edit" PI.  See the referenced email for more.

So unless this WG feels a need to comment on a potential
xml-edit PI, we can close this issue.

3.  XLink update.

Norm posted a draft[10] with diff[11]; there has been 
some discussion[12].

We will have to make it an XLink 1.1, and we need to make a
charter change.  We would either have to have specific
requirements put into the charter, or we'd have to write
a Requirements Document first.

Upon reflection, it seems unlikely that opening up XLink
for a 1.1 will go "unnoticed"; specifically, some of us
expect this would open up the HLink versus XLink discussion
again.  It may not be possible for this to be an easy change.
We'll need to think about this some more.

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]. 

PE135: When to check entity WFness according to 4.3.2
The root of this issue appears to be the WF of entities that are
declared but never referenced.

Glenn: If we're going to make this clarification, I'm not sure why
internal general entities are the only places where we would do this.
Is this yet another case where the outline of the spec causes to have
statements scattered along one dimension but if someone wants to
gather them together in one section, they're not completely
cross-referenced. This may just be a case where we need to tie the
statements about parsed entities together better. Maybe not enough
things are links.

ACTION: Glenn to review PE135 and see if he can propose a solution.

PE136: XML 1.1 processors accepting XML 1.0 documents
Glenn: In an earlier draft, I think we waffled a bit. And so I think
that we settled on the MUST.

Some discussion about whether we should change SHOULD to MUST in 2.8 or
if we should just drop the relevant sentence.

Norm expresses reservations about leaving the statement about 1.1
processors accepting 1.0 documents until way down in the document.

Glenn observes that this may have just been a reminder about 1.0 vs. 1.1
because it's been a long time since the discussion of version numbers

PROPOSED: We're inclined to fix this problem by removing the sentence.
We'll give everyone a week to think about it and revisit the issue
again next week.

PE137: Improper RFC2119 "MAY"
Is the "MAY" in the first paragraph of Section 2 an RFC2119 "MAY" or
just a regular English "may"?

PROPOSED: Tim Bray is correct, we should reword this sentence either
lowercasing the MAY or removing it entirely.

  In addition, the XML document is valid if it meets certain further

PROPOSED: We're inclined to fix it with the preceding sentence.
We'll give everyone a week to think about it and revisit the issue
again next week.

PE138: Further fix to E05
Editorial:  Fix the title attribute of the link.

5. Namespaces in XML.

  Ongoing ACTION to Richard:  Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed.

Makoto thinks we should fold all our errata into an NS1.0 2nd Ed,
but we should not fold in our other editorial changes from 1.1
into 1.0 2nd Ed.  He sent his comments at
wherein he objected to our folding editorial changes that were not
processed as errata back from 1.1 into 1.0.

Paul checked with W3C folks about whether we can
fold editorial errata from 1.1 back into 1.0 2nd Ed
and our plan is acceptable:

6. Xinclude PR was published Sept 30 at:
   and announced to the AC at

   The AC review closed October 29.  

We will shoot for a Dec 8th publication date (though that
can only be tentative, since it depends on the Comm team).

Testimonials have been requested.

ACTION to Philippe:  Work with W3T to publish XInclude.

Paul has updated status and things; pub-ready files are at:

Sandra has sent new test suite stuff to Henry.

ACTION to Henry:  Update the test suite home page with what
Sandra sent to you.

7. xml:id.

Our Last Call of xml:id is published at

The (public) xml:id issues is at:
[Not up to date as of the writing of this agenda, but
all issues are closed.]

ACTION to Norm:  Update the xml:id issues document (though no
immediate need this week).

We also will need an issues list for the Last Call,
though we don't need it until mid-December.

Norm announced he had a sax filter implementation of xml:id:

8.  XML Profile.  The TAG (via Norm) asks about progress on this:

We last talked about this at the March 2004 f2f:

The TAG has just dropped xmlProfiles-29 as an issue.

At this point, I suggest we just drop this task.

Assuming we do drop it, we should inform the TAG and XML CG.
Norm and/or I can take that action item.


[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/2004Nov/0056
[8] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata
[9] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V11-1e-errata
[10] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/
[11] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/diff.html
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0057
Received on Monday, 6 December 2004 16:32:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:34 UTC