W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > April 2005

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 April 6

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:59:52 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C0303F4825B@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 John  xx:21

[10 organizations (10 with proxies) present out of 10]


Absent organizations

DV sends regrets for the next two or three weeks,
proxy to the chair.

> 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. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> The new XML Core WG charter should be in the process
> of getting approved.  We can expect a new call for 
> participation soon by the end of this week.


The Call for Participation is out, and everyone on the WG
has to have their AC rep submit their name as a member in
the rechartered WG within the next 45 days:

> The WG needs to review the Binary XML documents:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xbc-measurement-20050224/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xbc-properties-20050224/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xbc-use-cases-20050224/ 
> Norm is reviewing them already for the TAG.  He sent
> some comments to the XML Core mailing list at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0046
> Dmitry, who is on the XBC WG, is also familiar with 
> the documents.
> ACTION to Dmitry:  Send email before the telcon to 
> the XML Core WG outlining any issues in these documents 
> that may be of interest to the XML Core WG.

Dmitry sent his comments at:

> He recommends waiting until this Thursday to review
> the measurement documents which will be changing
> (the other two are ready for review).  There will
> be a fourth document, Characterization, that will
> be published on or soon after this Thursday.
> ACTION to Lew:  Review the documents and report to
> the WG by the end of March.

Lew sent his comments at:

Both Lew and Dmitry think Binary XML is an important
issue and are mostly positive about doing something
in this area.

Norm reviewed some of the documents and had some
serious problems with the presentation of some of
the documents as well as with some of the technical
comments.  He is not convinced that it makes sense
to standardize binary XML at this point.

Henry points out that the group that produced these
documents is now closed, so any comments would be
mostly aimed at any future work in this area.

> Richard has been volunteered to review the 
> XPath 2.0/XQuery 1.0 Data Model document, to be published 
> as a LC WD in late March or early April (though there are 
> no plans to make any changes to it at this time, so the
> review can start at any time).
> ACTION to Richard:  Review the XPath 2.0/XQuery 1.0 Data 
> Model document:  
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xpath-datamodel-20050211/
> Norm says the two key areas for XML Core to review are
> Constructing a datamodel from an infoset and constructing 
> an infoset from the datamodel.
> Richard remembers there being something strange about 
> the PSVI, and he wants to check on that too.

Richard is reviewing it and hasn't yet come up with any
big problems.  He expects to be completed within the
next couple days.

> We should review the Compound Document Format (CDF) 
> Use Cases and Requirements document:
> http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/Group/specs/CDR/usecases/1.0/cdr-use-cases-reqs.xml
> which talks about "combining separate component technologies 
> (e.g. XML-based languages, elements and attributes from 
> separate namespaces)...[including]... compounding by 
> reference and by inclusion."
> JohnC did a pass and saw nothing for XML Core WG.
> Paul still hopes to look at it.
> 3.  XLink update.
> Our WG Note "Extending XLink 1.0" has been published:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xlink10-ext-20050127/
> A charter modification has gone to the AC:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2005JanMar/0036
> While we aren't quite chartered for this yet, we did
> discuss it some at our f2f:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#xlink
> Norm made a pass at XLink 1.1 at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/
> with a diff (from 1.0) at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/Overview-diff.html
> 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]. 
> See the discussion of IRIs and the "MAY" paragraph
> under item 5. Namespaces in XML below (which actually
> occurred during our f2f under the XLink discussion).
> We need to make some IRI related errata to XML 1.0 
> and 1.1 (for system ids). 
> Note this does NOT mean that we would change the 
> reference to 2396 to now be 3986 because that could
> imply other changes.
> ACTION to Richard:  Draft wording for the erratum 
> to XML 1.0 and 1.1 updating the IRI wording (and
> referencing the MAY paragraph).
> We had a question about the XML Test Suite arise; see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0037
> Awaiting response from Richard.
> 5. Namespaces in XML.
> Richard suggested we take NS 1.1 and revert the two 
> substantive changes (IRI and undeclared namespaces) 
> to create NS 1.0 2nd Ed. The WG has consensus to do 
> that, and we got approval from the team to do so.
> Ongoing ACTION to Richard:  Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed.
> We note that the IRI spec is now finished-RFC 3987-so 
> we have to issue an erratum for NS 1.1 for this.  We
> discussed some details of this under the XLink discussion:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#xlink
> Briefly, 3987 does have some wording (the "MAY" paragraph) 
> about what used to be called unwise characters.  For the 
> NS 1.1 erratum, the MAY paragraph doesn't apply since 
> namespace names cannot have the unwise characters.  (The 
> MAY paragraph will be needed for XML 1.* system identifiers.)
> ACTION to Richard:  Process an erratum to NS 1.1 to
> refer to RFC 3987: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt
> 6. Xinclude Rec was published 2004 December 30 at:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xinclude-20041220/
> Our XInclude potential errata document is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/proposed-xinclude-errata
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0029
> for the latest status of the open PEs.
> PEX1 Fatal XInclude errors in unactivated fallbacks
> ---------------------------------------------------
> We will add a paragraph to "Section 4.4 Fallback Behavior" 
> about how there are no fatal errors relating to fallback-both 
> errors within fallback elements and errors due to the wrong 
> number of fallback elements-unless there is a resource error 
> with the xinclude element surround this(these) fallback 
> element(s). We will also add something after the third 
> sentence of section 3.2 to this effect.
> ACTION to ???:  Suggest actual wording.
> PEX2 URI or IRI errors handling
> -------------------------------
> There will be no change to the spec.
> We don't expect implementors of XInclude to implement 
> IRI processing, so whatever ends up happening with 
> respect to IRIs isn't really the fault of the XInclude 
> processor. However, we don't want to license such behavior, 
> so we don't want to change our current wording here. 
> ACTION to ???:  Reply to the commentor.
> PEX3 What is an error (subcase on accept attribute value)
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Can we close this as being a duplicate of PEX7?
> PEX5 XML encoding detection in parse="text"
> -------------------------------------------
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0032
> PEX14 What if encoding is not an EncName?
> -------------------------------------------
> While Paul thought this was a duplicate of PEX7,
> Francois pointed out we could distinguish between
> the PEX7 case and the case where the encoding
> attribute value isn't even lexically valid per
> XML 1.0 production [81]:
> [81]  EncName ::= [A-Za-z] ([A-Za-z0-9._] | '-')* 
>     /* Encoding name contains only Latin characters */
> Francois suggests making it a fatal xinclude error if
> the XInclude processor actually goes to try to use an
> encoding value and that value doesn't conform to the
> syntax of EncName.
> What do others think?

DV and John are not so inclined to do this.  It doesn't
seem to do a lot of help in most cases.  Nor does Richard.

CONSENSUS to leave this as a dup of PEX3 and PEX7.

> PEX15 XPointers with percent escapes: what type of error?
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0033
> 7. xml:id.
> The CR was published (2005 Feb 8) at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-xml-id-20050208/
> The (public) xml:id LC issues is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xml-id/lc-status/status-report.html
> The LC DoC is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id-lc-doc.html
> Our implementation report is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id-implementation.html
> We have a test suite cover page at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xml-id/
> Norm sent some email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0023
> and a sample of his implementation feedback at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id/xmlidfilter-report
> ACTION to Norm:  Add a link to the test suite from
> your implementation feedback report.
> ACTION to DV, Richard:  Run your implementation on the 
> test suite and produce some feedback report.
> Elliotte Rusty Harold is running the test suite and
> asking a number of questions we need to answer--see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005Apr/

ACTION to Norm:  Provide some answers to ERH's comments.

We need to provide the right answers for the tests.

We discussed changing wording about errors so that an xml-id
processor doesn't need to report errors *to the application*.

In Section 6 Errors, we currently say:

  A violation of the constraints in this specification
  results in an xml:id error. Such errors are not fatal,
  but must be reported by the xml:id processor to the
  application invoking it.

ACTION to Richard:  Suggest some rewording to ERH.@@@

> 8.  Associating stylesheets--awaiting TAG action.
> ACTION to Henry:  Raise this issue at the TAG level
> (or just bring it back to us).

ACTION continued.

> 9.  absolutivity of [base URI]
>     Norm has asked a question about the absolutivity of [base URI]:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Feb/0031
> We discussed this at our f2f:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#base-uri
> We have CONSENSUS that base URIs are always absolute. 
> The last sentence of the first 
> paragraph of section 5.1 of RFC 3986 says "If the base 
> URI is obtained from a URI reference, then that reference 
> must be converted to absolute form and stripped of any 
> fragment component prior to its use as a base URI."
> Since the infoset and xml:base refer to 2396, it's not 
> clear whether the fragment identifier is part of the 
> infoset's [base URI] or not as life stands today. 
> Richard: In 2396, base URIs can have fragment identifiers,
> but this doesn't matter because they aren't used when doing
> absolutization or determining if there is a same document ref.
> In 3986, base URIs don't have fragment ids, and again this 
> doesn't matter for resolution, but it is essential that it
> be stripped off for the determine of whether something is a
> same document reference.
> In the infoset, we do expose the base URI as a property, and 
> if we were to switch xml:base and XML itself from 2396 to 
> 3986, the value of the base URI property would be different.
> Richard isn't sure we want to do that.
> ACTION to Richard:  Draft a message for Roy et al. and send
> to the XML Core WG for discussion (later, to be sent to
> the uri group and the tag).

ACTION continued.

> paul
> [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/2005Mar/0045
> [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 April 2005 16:00:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:34 UTC