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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2004 July 28

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:56:23 -0400
Message-ID: <9C92C0983E60A74380C585F1EB5D186FE71AB5@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: "XML Core WG" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 Richard xx:23
 Lew  xx:22
 John xx:33

[8 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 12]


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).


> 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).


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:

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:
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

> 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

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