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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2004 October 6

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:40:08 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20041006113923.014fd780@172.27.10.30>
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Attendees
---------
Paul 
Glenn 
Dmitry
Leonid
Richard
Henry 
Lew
Daniel

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

Regrets
------- 
Norm
Jonathan

Absent organizations
--------------------
Microsoft (with regrets)
NIST
John Cowan
François Yergeau 


Daniel gives probable regrets for Oct 13.

>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. 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

>
>CONSENSUS to remove the default for xml:space from the schema
>for the xml namespace.
>
>ACTION to Henry:  Draft a new schema and send it to the XML Core list.

ACTION continued.


>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].

Glenn has raised a question at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Sep/0081

about the wording for the ANY and mixed content models and whether
they allow cdata sections and/or comments and PIs.

All on the phone (and Francois in previous email) agree that we meant
to allows cdata sections and PIs and comments in these models.

ACTION to Glenn:  Propose corrected wording in email.

ACTION to Francois:  Make this a PE.


>5. Namespaces in XML.
>
>  ACTION to Richard:  Produce a draft for NS1.0 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

>
>   Please be sure your AC reps vote on it.

Voting ends October 29, so be sure votes are in by then. 

>Sandra has added ERH's test to the XInclude Test Suite.
>
>ACTION to Henry:  Update the XInclude Test Suite with Sandra's files,
>sent to us in private email headed:
>
>        From: Sandra Martinez [mailto:sandra.martinez@nist.gov]
>        Sent: Thursday, 2004 September 30 12:37
>        To: Paul Grosso
>        Cc: Henry S. Thompson
>        Subject: RE: XInclude Test Report
>
>        Attached are the archive files and the report that contains
>        Elliotte's tests.
>        . . .

ACTION Continued.


>7. xml:id.
>
>Norm has collected the xml:id issues, now (public) at:
>http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xml-id/wd-status/status-report.html

>
>ACTION to Norm:  Please add $Date $ to the CVS line at the top.

ACTION continued.

>The latest draft (2004 August 24) is at
>http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xmlid/xml-id.html

>
>ID Strictness
>-------------
>
>We have CONSENSUS on the following:
>
>* Processors MUST check that xml:id values are valid NCNames.
>
>* It is an xml:id error for xml:id values to not be unique.
>
>ACTION to Norm:  Produce another WG WD reflecting this and our
>other decisions.

ACTION continued.

>No mention of [references] Infoset property
>-------------------------------------------
>Conclusion:  We'd like a motherhood note that suggests that
>the [references] Infoset property should be correct for things
>recognized by xml:id.
>
>xml:id and fragment identifiers
>-------------------------------
>We have CONSENSUS that we don't need to say anything here.
>We could add another motherhood note here.
>
>
>8.  XML Profile.  The TAG (via Norm) asks about progress on this:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Sep/0004


Daniel asked about the status of the XML Processing Model/Pipeline.

Henry said this issue is still slowly rolling around within W3T.

Henry and Paul note that this topic is not in the XML Core WG
charter, so we are not going to be working on it (short of a
charter change).


>[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/2004Sep/0079

>[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, 6 October 2004 15:40:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:31 GMT