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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 August 24

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:48:34 -0500
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HQ-EX3FE2CFbN4TZyab00005056@HQ-EX3FE2.ptcnet.ptc.com>


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


Absent organizations
Centre for Development of Advanced Computing
John Cowan
Lew Shannon

> 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.

Ravi from Centre for Development of Advanced Computing
has joined the WG (but he was absent for this telcon).


> xml:lang in XML 1.0 (3e) and XML 1.1 issue:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Aug/0003

Henry forwarded the initial issue to the XML Core WG 
(via the above referenced email).

The schema for the XML namespace should allow xml:lang
values to include the empty string.

CONSENSUS with the above statement.

ACTION to Henry:  Update the schema for the XML namespace
and send announcements to appropriate fora.


Paul asked a question about the schema for schemas:

Henry agrees that it looks like a bug that the DTD
for schemas doesn't allow 0 and 1 for values of
the boolean datatype.

ACTION to Paul:  Send the message to www-xml-schema-comments;
Henry will shepherd it from there.


Norm says the TAG says we should talk to the CSS WG
about xml:id:

But we have discussed this with the CSS WG, and they
added wording to the latest spec--see the final paragraph
of the section "5.9 ID selectors" at
where it mentions xml:id explicitly.

ACTION to Norm:  Point out the above to the TAG.

> 3.  XLink update.
> The LC WD of XLink 1.1 has been published:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/
> We have comments at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 005JulSep/
> ACTION to Norm:  Reply as feasible and bring issues worth
> discussing to the WG via email.
> XLink 1.1: XML Base confusion
> -----------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 005JulSep/0009
> XML Base references RFC 2396 and XLink references RFC 3987
> (the IRI one) which references RFC 3986 (2396-bis) for
> absolutization and such, but nothing has changed between
> 2396 and 3986 wrt absolutization.  So we don't see the problem.
> ACTION to Norm:  Take this back to the commentor.
> XLink 1.1: Error handling
> -------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 005JulSep/0013
> We say what the conformance criteria are but not what
> to do when an error is encountered.  For example, what
> should we do if someone specifies an invalid value for
> one of the xlink:* attributes.
> Francois points out that this hasn't changed since XLink 1.0.
> ACTION to Norm:  Craft some words along the lines of error
> handling being implementation dependent.
> XLink 1.1: XLink 1.1 in XML 1.1
> -------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 005JulSep/0012
> Norm suggests we just say that XLink works for both XML 1.0
> and XML 1.1, and the names should just match the version
> being used.
> XLink 1.1: Integration with CSS
> -------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 005JulSep/0018
> How does XLink interact with CSS's :link selector?
> Francois suggests that we add a note that says "languages
> such as CSS should see XLink links as links."
> ACTION to Norm:  Respond to the commenter and to the CSS WG.

Norm will look at XLink comments and be ready 
next week with some more comments to discuss.

> 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]. 
> 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
> Daniel has updated the PE document with all the resolutions
> except a new one--see agenda item 11 below.
> We need to turn the PE document into an errata document.
> ACTION to DV:  Produce a draft Errata document, using
> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata as a starting 
> point/template.

ACTION continued.

> There have been some more XInclude test suite questions
> recently on the list:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2005Jul/
> ERH is fielding them to some extent, but it would be good
> to have someone else (Richard, Daniel?) take a look too.

ACTION to Richard, Daniel:  Continued.

> 7. xml:id.
> The PR was published (2005 July 12) at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-xml-id-20050712/
> The test suite is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xml-id/ 
> The "central page" for the implementation report is
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id-implementation.html

The PR comment period closes this Friday.

It looks like we have no significant comments at this time.

Norm will have suggested changes to the document 
by Sept 7 (if not next week).

> 8.  Associating stylesheets--awaiting TAG action.
> Henry reports that the HTML CG has been discussing this
> for a while.  They are developing a draft statement of
> the issue, and Chris Lilley will raise this at the XML CG.
> Henry thinks the XML CG should say one of two things:
> 1.  Have Chris send it on to XML Core;
> 2.  Request guidance from above.
> Henry thinks #1 is the correct next step.
> Chris started the discussion on the XML CG list--see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2005Jul/thread.html#15
> I expect the CG to pass this issue on to us this week.

The XML CG did discuss it some, but discussion within
the CG continues.

> 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. 
> Then we had a further issue about base URIs in the infoset.
> DV asks if it's always possible to make a relative URI absolute.
> Consider a relative xml:base URI in a stream that has no base URI.
> DV thinks his implementation doesn't expect the base URI to be
> absolute.
> Richard says that, in this case, the Infoset does not define
> a base URI.  All base URIs defined by the Infoset are absolute,
> but we say nothing about a base URI defined by an application.
> There is agreement that in the case where the base URI of an 
> infoset is absolute, that all base URI properties in that 
> infoset should be absolute.
> Richard sent email to www-tag about possible differences between 
> what RFC 2396 and 3986 say about base URIs:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0077

The difference is whether the fragment component is
removed from the base URI (3986 removes it, 2396 doesn't).

> HST spoke to Roy Fielding at the TAG meeting (2005 June 15ish), 
> and Roy will reply to Richard's email as a first step.

Never heard from Roy.

We have decided to DROP this issue (as UNRESOLVED, but not
important enough to continue for now).

> 11.  XInclude, schema validity-assessment, xml:base and xml:lang
> Henry kicked this off at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0039
> XInclude requires xml:base fixup with adds xml:base
> attributes to a document.  This causes problems 
> validating the result against the original schema
> if that schema doesn't mention xml:base.
> Norm wants the XML Schema group to have a mode that
> says "just assume all xml:* attributes are okay".
> Henry points out we even have problems with validation
> against DTDs in this case.
> It was suggested that we add to the XInclude spec:
> "An XInclude processor may, at user option, suppress
> xml:base and/or xml:lang fixup."
> Note, since this is "at user option" [see the XML spec
> for the defn of "at user option"], all XInclude processors
> MUST support xml:base and xml:lang fixup, but they MAY
> provide a user-specifiable option to suppress such fixup.
> We have CONSENSUS to add this phrase.
> ACTION to DV:  Add this to the XInclude PE document 
> with the resolution as suggested above.


> [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/2005Jul/0017
> [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, 24 August 2005 15:49:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:35 UTC