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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 April 13

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:59:17 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C0304108EFE@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

John  xx:16

[6 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 10]

Dmitry (proxy to the chair)
Daniel (proxy to the chair)

Absent organizations
IBM with regrets
Oracle with regrets, proxy to the chair
Daniel Veillard with regrets, proxy to the chair
Lew Shannon

DV sends regrets for the next week and probably
the following--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 has been approved.
> 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:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0006
> The WG reviewed 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 sent some comments:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0046
> Dmitry sent his comments at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0009
> Lew sent his comments at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0007
> 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.
> Since the Binary WG is closed, our comments would mostly
> be for whatever effort comes next, and since we don't
> have strong consensus comments, I propose we don't try
> to send in anything as a WG comment at this time.

So agreed.

> Richard reviewed the 
> XPath 2.0/XQuery 1.0 Data Model document that is at:  
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xpath-datamodel-20050211/
> Richard's review is at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0014

There is also an issue about what the types are in the data model:
the schema types or another system that is similar.  Henry and
Richard point out the type hierarchy in this data model spec
is not quite the same as in the XML Schema spec.

ACTION to Richard:  Augment the earlier email with respect
to the above issue and send them in as XML Core WG comments.

Henry raised another administrivia issue.
Rich Salz [rsalz@datapower.com] writes:

 I want try to start a discussion on the XML core WG mailing list
 (about separating validity from DTD's since DTD's are "useless"
 for namespaces).  I had sent the note to the TAG, but they said
 I should try here first.  I'm not on the WG, and I hate to just
 post something without being able to be part of the list.  I can
 agree to the patent policy, get my AC to nominate me (I suppose),
 or just ask to be joined temporarily. What's the best way to proceed?

ACTION to Paul:  Add Rich to the accept2 list and explain to Rich
what this means and ask him to resend his message to the TAG to
the WG list.

> 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

Actually, we are now re-chartered.

> 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

JohnC has reviewed Norm's draft and approves.

Norm thinks we are close to finished except for section 5.4
where he is not sure how to rewrite with respect to the fact
that href's now contain IRIs instead of URIs.

Francois and John think the only escaping that still needs
to be done is for spaces.

Francois suggested that we could decide not to allow spaces,
but we had CONSENSUS to allow them so that all valid XLink 1.0
documents are valid XLink 1.1.

John points out that "has no XLink-specified meaning" should
be changed to "does not conform to this specification" or
some such.

ACTION to Norm:  Update the spec.

ACTION to John:  Send relaxng schema to Norm.

ACTION to Henry:  Send XML Schema to Norm.

ACTION to Paul:  Send in the necessaries for publishing this
as a first WD.

> 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.

ACTION continued.

> 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.

ACTION to Norm:  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.

ACTION to Norm:  Reply to the commentor.

> PEX3 What is an error (subcase on accept attribute value)
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Can we close this as being a duplicate of PEX7?

CONSENSUS to close as a dup of PEX7.

> PEX5 XML encoding detection in parse="text"
> -------------------------------------------
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0032

One can have "+xml" on a mime type that is neither
XML or text, and we don't say anything about that
in XInclude.

Norm thinks we should say XInclude can work with "+xml"
mime types.  

But then image/svg+xml doesn't have a charset.

ACTION to Francois:  Take a look at this for next week.

> PEX14 What if encoding is not an EncName?
> -------------------------------------------
> 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

JohnC sent email saying:

  There is no issue of any sort of error.  We simply need to insert
  a sentence like "%-escaping is not done in XPointers, so '%' is
  simply an ordinary character in the value of the xpointer attribute."


ACTION to Daniel:  Update the PE document with these resolutions
and update the spec accordingly.

> 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/
> Norm provided some answers to ERH's comments:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005Apr/0006
> and 0007, 0008, 0009.

Richard had some questions on Norm's latest test suite.

On the last test, Norm fails because XSLT can't do it.
Norm gets a space in it that shouldn't be there.  When
Richard runs it, he gets the empty string for the result.

ACTION to Norm:  Investigate what should happen on this
last test.

> 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 for this and
> pass it by ERH.

ACTION continued.

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

ACTION to Henry 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).
> 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/2005Apr/0013
> [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, 13 April 2005 15:59:23 UTC

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