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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2004 December 8

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:38:40 -0500
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C0301FD1B06@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
 Paul 
 Arnaud
 Sandra
 Leonid
 Richard
 Henry
 Daniel 

[7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 12]

Regrets
------- 
Norm
Lew

Absent organizations
--------------------
Microsoft
Oracle
François Yergeau
Lew Shannon (with regrets)
John Cowan


Our next telcon will be next week, December 15th.

We have CANCELLED the telcons for Dec 22 and 29,
so after next week's call, the following telcon
will be January 5th.

> 
> Agenda
> ======
> 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).

Accepted.

> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia.
> 
> The next W3C Technical Plenary Week will be 28 February 2005
> through 4 March 2005:
>      http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html
> 
> ACTION: Norm to coordinate a liaison.
> 
> 
> 2.5. XForms WG Note on xml-stylesheet and XForms.
> 
> See the draft Working Group Note at
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group/Drafts/stylesheet-pi
> 
> See the thread starting at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2004OctDec/0022
> especially Norm's message at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2004OctDec/0030
> 
> See also JohnC's comments at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0037
> 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.
> 
> Per
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2004OctDec/0194
> we've been told the Forms WG has withdrawn the Note.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.

CONSENSUS to 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.

Last week, the XML CG suggested that someone (SVG or XML Core)
write a WG Note that effectively outlines the desired changes
to XLink.  Then, we can put through an XML Core WG charter
change that allows us specifically to issue an XLink 1.1 that
implements the changes in the Note.

Henry thinks the WG Note approach is a good idea.

> 
> 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.

ACTION to Glenn continued.

> 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
> began.
> 
> 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.

CONSENSUS:  Put the proposed into countdown.

> 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
>   constraints.
> 
> 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.

CONSENSUS:  Put the proposed into countdown.

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

CONSENSUS:  Consider editorial and approved; make it so.

ACTION to Francois:  Update PE doc for PE 136, 137, and 138.

> 
> 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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2004Nov/0004
> 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:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0041

Richard pointed out a namespace comment at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2004Dec/0000
which requests something which is almost a different kind of schema.

We should discuss this at a future meeting.

ACTION to Paul:  Add to our next meeting agenda.

> 
> 6. Xinclude PR was published Sept 30 at:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-xinclude-20040930/
>    and announced to the AC at
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2004JulSep/0043 
> 
>    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).

We are now told the pub date will be the 20th.

ACTION to Paul:  Update the docs to reflect the new pubdate.

> Testimonials have been requested.

Univ of Edinburgh will get one out within the next week.

ACTION to Paul:  Ping Norm for Sun and Jonathan for Microsoft
about submitting a testimonial for XInclude.

> ACTION to Philippe:  Work with W3T to publish XInclude.

ACTION continued.

> Paul has updated status and things; pub-ready files are at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/12/REC-xinclude-20041208/
> 
> Sandra has sent new test suite stuff to Henry.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Update the test suite home page with what
> Sandra sent to you.

ACTION continued.

> 
> 7. xml:id.
> 
> Our Last Call of xml:id is published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/
> 
> The (public) xml:id issues is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xml-id/wd-status/status-report.html
> [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:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Oct/0042

The Last Call review period ends next Monday; we await feedback.

> 
> 8.  XML Profile.  The TAG (via Norm) asks about progress on this:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Sep/0004
> 
> We last talked about this at the March 2004 f2f:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/02/xml-f2f-20040301-minutes#profile
> 
> The TAG has just dropped xmlProfiles-29 as an issue.
> 
> At this point, I suggest we just drop this task.

CONSENSUS to 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.

ACTION to Paul:  Inform the TAG and XML CG.

> 
> paul
> 
> [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
> [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
> [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 Wednesday, 8 December 2004 16:38:43 UTC

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