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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2004 December 15

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:44:16 -0500
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C03021903AF@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 Lew  xx:15
 John  xx:10

[9 organizations (9 with proxies) present out of 12]


Absent organizations
Univ of Edinburgh (with regrets)
Daniel Veillard (with regrets)

We have CANCELLED the telcons for Dec 22 and 29,
so our next call will be January 5th.

> 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:
>      http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html
> ACTION: Norm to coordinate a liaison with the TAG.

Norm will try to set up a meeting time during the Tech Plen
in case we have something to discuss with the TAG by then.

> 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.
> 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.

Henry tells us that publishing a WG Note only takes a
"polite pre-announcement" to the chairs.

We decided to develop a WG Note "Extending XLink 1.0"
that lists the changes we suggest to XLink 1.0.

ACTION to Norm:  Draft such a WG Note.

> 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.

Glenn sent email at

He suggests we add to 4.3.2 by way of clarification:

  Only parsed entities that are referenced directly or indirectly 
  within the document are required to be well-formed.

ACTION to Francois:  Put the above into countdown until Jan 5th.

> 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 resolution (in COUNTDOWN until Jan 5): Remove the sentence.
> PE137: Improper RFC2119 "MAY"
> -----------------------------
> Is the "MAY" in the first paragraph of Section 2 an RFC2119 "MAY" or
> just a regular English "may"?
> 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 resolution (in COUNTDOWN until Jan 5): Replace the sentence
> with the above suggested rewording.
> PE138: Further fix to E05
> -------------------------
> Editorial:  Fix the title attribute of the link.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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 are now expecting a Dec 20th publication date.
> Paul has updated status and things; pub-ready files are at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/12/REC-xinclude-20041220/
> Testimonials have been requested.

Philippe says that Arbortext and Sun have sent in a testimonial.

Henry tells us that U of Edinburgh will be sending in a testimonial.

Others are encouraged to do so by midday (Boston time) Friday.

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

We are publishing on Dec 20th.

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


> Someone from DIWG sent email about XInclude--see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Dec/0010
> Any thoughts on how to respond?  (Feel free to Reply to the 
> above email before the telcon with any thoughts.)

That was the wrong URL; it should have been:

Please read this email and Reply (including "Rotan Hanrahan" 
<Rotan.Hanrahan@MobileAware.com>) if you have any thoughts.

> It has been brought to my attention that we apparently failed
> to look at the public XInclude comments list for comments
> received during the PR review which is basically the October
> archives for this list:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2004Oct/
> I'm assuming we can treat most of these as errata, but I would 
> be interested if anyone has a chance to glance at these messages 
> and let us know if there are any glaring issues.

We will handle these comments as potential errata for XInclude.

> 7. xml:id.
> Our Last Call of xml:id is published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/
> The Last Call review will have ended by this week's telcon.
> 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.
> We also will need an issues list for the Last Call.
> Norm announced he had a sax filter implementation of xml:id:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Oct/0042

Norm produced a LC issues list at

He will update it to reflect followup email by our next telcon
when we will start going through the issues.

> 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/2004Dec/0008
> [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, 15 December 2004 16:44:26 UTC

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