- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:02:24 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Paul Arnaud Sandra Dmitry Richard Daniel xx:13 John Lew [8 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 12] Regrets ------- Glenn Norm Henry Leonid Absent organizations -------------------- Microsoft Sun (with regrets) W3C (with regrets) François Yergeau > 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 > > The meeting will be held in the Hyatt Harborside, Boston: > http://harborside.hyatt.com/property/index.jhtml > > > 3. There is no agenda item 3. We added an item here on xml-stylesheet and XForms. See the draft Working Group Note at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group/Drafts/stylesheet-pi and also at http://www.w3.org/TR/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 Everyone on the call felt that use of the xml-stylesheet here was wrong. We had some discussion. Most of us are certainly opposed to them using type="application/xml". Arnaud would like to know more about the motivation and why they are using the xml-stylesheet PI instead of something else. We noted that the XSLT spec says (last para before section 2): The MIME media types text/xml and application/xml [RFC2376] should be used for XSLT stylesheets. ACTION to Paul: Request further info from the XForms WG. > > > 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 133 CDATA sections, PIs and Comments in Mixed and ANY > content models > -------------------------------------------------------------- > CONSENSUS to approve and publish. > ACTION to Francois: Update PE and Errata documents for PE 133. Done. > PE 134 Non-ascii chars in XML/text declaration > ---------------------------------------------- > The xml-editor list received a comment at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2004OctDec/0003 > which is presumably asking the same question asked earlier at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2003OctDec/0048 > and which the commenter claims we never answered satisfactorily. > > We had a proposed resolution at > http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/02/proposed-xml10-3e-and-xml11-errata#PE134 > but the commentor came back at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2004Oct/0131 > thereby requiring Francois to update the rationale. > > ACTION to Francois: Update the rationale and restart the countdown. Done, in countdown until next week. > PE132 Validity of default attribute values (again) > -------------------------------------------------- > This comes down to the wording in section 3.3.2 where we say > "only the syntactic constraints of the type are required here" > but then we argued about what "syntactic" means. > > CONSENSUS: It is a violation of the Attribute Default Legal VC > for the default value not to be one of those specified in the > enumerated list for enumerated type attributes. > > John proposed new language for "Validity constraint: > Attribute Default Legal" to solve the ambiguity here at: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0001 > > CONSENSUS to put into countdown. > > ACTION to Francois: Update the proposed resolution and put into > countdown. Done, in countdown until next week. > 5. Namespaces in XML. > > 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. ACTION to Paul: Check with W3C folks about whether we can fold editorial errata from 1.1 back into 1.0 2nd Ed. > > 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. > > Henry now needs to organize a Rec call in the next week > or so. He thinks the call should be mostly just a formality. > > ACTION to Henry: Take XInclude to Rec. No new status reported (Henry had sent regrets). ACTION to Henry continued. > Sandra has added ERH's tests to the CVS of the XInclude Test Suite. > We will plan to update the tar and zip (and test suite home page) > after the PR ends and we are ready to publish the Rec. > > ACTION to Sandra: Prepare the test suite stuff and prepare > for Henry. Done. > ACTION to Henry: Update the test suite home page with what > Sandra sends to you. ACTION to Henry 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). > > Norm announced he had a sax filter implementation of xml:id: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Oct/0042 > > > 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 > Awaiting progress on ACTION items. > Norm continues to recommend that we make a profile that is the > same as XML 1.1 except to change the bnf so that you can't have > any sort of doctype decl. > > Norm suggests we generate a WG Note outlining the subset. > > Glenn asks about how this might affect the idea of a > compliant XML processor. Specifically, a processor that > only processes this subset is not a compliant XML processor. > > SOAP also forbids PIs, but we believe they can live with a > subset with PIs. > > ACTION to Norm: Send email summarizing his suggested plan > (though the ACTION below to check with the TAG should probably > come first). > > Norm started a TAG discussion at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Oct/0059 > but reached no denouement. > > ACTION to Norm: Check with the TAG that this is something > they still want to see worked on. > > The next step would seem to be to write a summary of the > plan and send it out and see if it makes people happy. > We should be sure to include at least the TAG, SOAP, the > XML CG. > > > [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/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 > >
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:02:31 UTC