- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:56:23 -0400
- To: "XML Core WG" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Paul Glenn Arnaud Sandra Norm Richard xx:23 Lew xx:22 Daniel John xx:33 [8 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 12] Regrets ------- Jonathan Leonid Dmitry Henry François Absent organizations -------------------- Microsoft (with regrets) Oracle (with regrets) W3C (with regrets) François Yergeau (with regrets) Our next telcon will be next Wednesday, August 4th. Norm, John send regrets. > 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. Place holder for administrivia, reviews, etc. > > > 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. We should remove the default for xml:space from the schema. We have CONSENSUS that we should remove the default from xml:space, but we'd like to wait until Henry is back to be sure. ACTION to Henry (when he returns): Comment and perhaps fix the schema. > > 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). > CONSENSUS. ACTION to Francois: Put into countdown. > PE 131 Space or S in XML decl. > ------------------------------ > We use Space in the XML decl, but S elsewhere. > > I (PBG) think the spec is as we decided/desired per earlier > discussion. > > See > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2003/03/xml11-doc/xml11-cr-comment > s.html#issue-Tobin-02 > and http://www.w3.org/XML/2003/06/xml11-cr-doc.html . We > can point to the latter (as > it's a public document), referencing Tobin-02 [too bad there > aren't name attributes on > these <a> elements for each issue so we can point to a > specific one--maybe next time!] > which points to the issue (nicely explained by Richard) and > our decisions on the comment > list. > > So I think the resolution should be to reference the Tobin-02 > CR issue and resolution and to make no change. Actually, it's more confused than that. 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 ACTION to Francois: Record the above resolution and put into countdown. > > 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/ > > Jonathan, Sandra, and Richard sent email on the test suite at: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Jul/0021 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Jul/0022 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Jul/0025 > What is the current status of the test suite? > Sandra had sent email with what she thought were the needed corrections at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Jul/0022 and she is waiting for confirmation or corrections on that. Richard and Glenn agree that Sandra should do as outlined in her email. ACTION to Sandra: Make the changes and commit to CVS. > 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 > At the top, this document says it's a DoC for the 3rd XInclude CR. > Are we really at the third CR, or just the second? > > Am I reading the DoC correctly to say that we have closed all issues? > > Are there any "closed" issues for which we have rebuttal we > wish to discuss? > > In the DoC, I don't understand "Ack" column of the table. What does > "review reply unaddressed" mean? > > I thought we got some push back from Elliotte that requires that we > indicate review non-acceptance of our resolution, but I don't see that > reflected in the DoC. > > I believe we have some implementation feedback from Richard--that is what > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Jul/0025 > is, Richard, correct? > 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. > We still need implementation feedback from Daniel and > Elliotte (and any others from who we can). > ACTION to Richard: Send Elliotte an email on how to present his results, cc-ing Paul. > ACTION to Richard, DV: Provide a table giving results of running the > test suite on your implementation. Daniel still needs to generate his results. > ACTION to Paul: Write a PR request once we are ready to exit CR. > > > 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. > > We need to get into processing xml:id comments and producing > a new draft. > > ACTION to Daniel: Work toward producing a new draft. > Norm may have some cycles to work on this after mid-August. > > [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/2004Jul/0016 > [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, 28 July 2004 11:57:03 UTC