- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:00:17 -0500
- To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
- Message-id: <87u0rf5gim.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com> was heard to say:
| Paul sends regrets; Norm will chair.
Attendees
---------
Arnaud
Glenn
Daniel xx:17
Henry
Leonid
Norm
Philippe
Sandra
Regrets
-------
Paul
Richard
Lew
Absent
------
Dmitry
François
JohnC
| 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.
| 1.5. 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
|
| The TAG has asked if we wish to have any f2f time with them
| during the Technical Plenary week. We're not sure yet, but
| two possible areas are:
| * issues with the XML Profile
| * the XForms xml-stylesheet PI issue
ACTION: Norm to coordinate a liason.
| 2. 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.
|
| Paul requested further info from the Forms WG:
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2004OctDec/0138
| No response as of this Agenda writing; Paul just pinged again:
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2004OctDec/0172
|
| Richard initially agreed with Norm's comment, but now he feels
| that what JohnC said makes some sense.
|
| We need to discuss more with at least Richard, Norm, JohnC on
| the call.
HT: It has been escalated at the XML CG. Chris Lilley has an action
to raise this at the HTML WG.
Revisit next week.
| 3. XLink erratum/update.
|
| Norm has suggested a possible update to XLink at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0033
| where we say that an element that has an xlink:href but
| does not have an xlink:type should be treated as if it
| had a "simple" link type.
|
| Several of us have expressed support for this idea,
| and no one objects.
|
| Upon research, we believe we could make this change via
| the PER route, but we would need to show some implementations
| (which shouldn't be hard, I'm told).
|
| XLink is not in any WG's charter. PLH agrees that, if it
| would be in anyone's charter, it would be in XML Core.
|
| ACTION to PLH: Investigate the charter and patent issue
| as well as confirming that we can use the PER route (e.g.,
| XLink 1.0, 2nd Ed.).
PLH: Talked to Ian and concluded that it's not an erratum on XLink
1.0. So it would have to be an XLink 1.1. The first implication is
that we have to be careful and make it clear that it's a small, simple
fix. The charter would also have to be updated which requires an AC
review. So we'd need three reviews: 1 for the charter, 1 for the LC,
and 1 for the PR. In the best case, we'd be done in April.
Arnaud: It also means that we'd need to develop a test suite and other
things.
PHL: It's been reported that some folks are already doing
implementation.
HT: I would hope that we could argue that this is an edited
recommendation in all but name and we don't need the full weight of
the process here.
Norm: Are we commited to doing this, or should I ask the question formally?
HT: I think we should do it and we should include a schema formally.
Norm: XLink precedes XML Schema so there isn't one.
HT: It seems to me that we ought to add one and put it at the
namespace URI and bless it in the REQ.
| Paul raised this issue with the XML CG. The consensus was
| for the XML CG to ask the XML Core WG to pick up this task,
| but then the XML CG needs to work through charter issues.
| (PLH and Michael Sperberg-McQueen will investigate.)
|
| Assuming charter issues get addressed, we should be able
| to do this via a PER. Perhaps someone can suggest the
| actual wording for the change so that the WG can agree
| on it.
PHL: We should try to send a new charter to the AC before the middle
of December.
PROPOSED: Do we want to persue an XLink 1.1 for the small changes that
we've discussed?
DV: We should do it.
No objections.
ACCEPTED.
ACTION: PHL to provide a revised charter for review by next week.
Proposed changes:
1. Make xlink:type optional (defaulting to "simple")
2. Include an XML Schema as an appendix, not normatively
ACTION: Norm to produce an XLink 1.1 draft.
| 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].
|
| We have several new PEs we might consider.
PE122:
Some discussion, but no resolution. Richard followed up to Jonathan's
original mail, let's wait for Richard to be present.
PE135:
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.
PE136:
Glenn: In an earlier draft, I think we woffled 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.
PE137:
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.
PE138 skipped this week.
|
| 5. Namespaces in XML.
|
| Ongoing ACTION to Richard: Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed.
Postponed until Richard is present.
| 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).
|
| ACTION to Philippe: Work with W3T to prepare XInclude for Rec.
PHL: Did not get a final confirmation that December 8 is the Rec, but
the goal is to have everything ready by December 6. That means the
press release and testimonials will have to be ready by then. Will know
more by the beginning of December.
| ACTION to Paul: Update the WD for Rec (dates, status).
ACTION: PHL to review http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/12/REC-xinclude-20041208/Overview.html
PHL The only unknown is whether the comm team will be able to do it on
December 8.
DV: We don't have an erratum page.
That's something we can add.
| Sandra has sent new test suite stuff to Henry.
|
| ACTION to Henry: Update the test suite home page with what
| Sandra sent to you.
HT: Still pending.
ADJOURNED
| [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/0043
| [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
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:00:31 UTC