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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 August 31

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:06:01 -0500
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HQ-EX3FE2wBGpEI2rV400010a26@HQ-EX3FE2.ptcnet.ptc.com>

Richard  xx:25

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


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

> 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.
> xml:lang in XML 1.0 (3e) and XML 1.1 issue:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Aug/0003
> CONSENSUS: The schema for the XML namespace should allow 
> xml:lang values to include the empty string.
> ACTION to Henry:  Update the schema for the XML namespace
> and send announcements to appropriate fora.

Henry has created an updated schema and put it into
date space--see:

CONSENSUS to make this newer version the "official"
version by copying

ACTION to Henry:  Make the above change and announce
appropriately (including chairs@w3.org).

> ---
> Paul asked a question about the schema for schemas:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Aug/0008
> 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.
> Paul sent the message to www-xml-schema-comments.
> ACTION to Henry:  Shepherd it from there.


> ---
> Norm says the TAG says we should talk to the CSS WG
> about xml:id:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Aug/0005
> 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.

ACTION to Norm:  Continued.

> 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/2005JulSep/
> ACTION to Norm:  Reply as feasible and bring issues worth
> discussing to the WG via email.
> XLink 1.1: XML Base confusion
> -----------------------------
> 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
> -------------------------
> 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
> -------------------------------
> 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
> -------------------------------
> 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.
> 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]. 

There are some issues that Francois will add
to the PE document including those about the test suite.

ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document including
issues raised on public-xml-testsuite@w3.org.

> 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
> 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 to DV 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 continued.

> 7. xml:id.
> The PR was published (2005 July 12) at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-xml-id-20050712/
> and the PR period closed last week.
> 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
> ACTION to Norm:  Have suggested changes to the document 
> by Sept 7 (if not this week).

Comment 1--ERH editorial rewording

We had CONSENSUS to approve rewording and direct the editor
to pick the exact wording.

Comment 3--Paul Sandoz request for adding a link

Comment 4--request for new (sub-id) feature
DECLINED as a new feature.

Comment 5--Webb Roberts concern about whether they
should use xml:id
CONSENSUS to close this as not a comment on the Rec.

Comment 2--Dieter Köhler 
CONSENSUS to direct the editor make editorial changes.

Re: "Application-level processing of IDs..."
Norm will explain that we don't see the conflict.
The minutes of 2 Feb 2005
explain why we put in that note.

We won't change "assures" because we use that word
in various places.

Re: "The xml:id processor performs ... the constraints."
Norm will explain it isn't a "MAY", it is a MUST.

We will change implementation-dependent to 

Re: "... it is up to the application to determine when 
such processing occurs" we are going to leave that.
It really is up to the app (and Richard's does it
in parallel).

Re: Sect 4 and 5.  It is editorial, but we spent time
figuring out how to do this and don't want to revisit,
so we will leave it as is.

Re: "ID type assignment may".  He wants us to make it
an RFC 2119 "may", but Richard says it's not.  In fact,
id type assignment is always performed, and that "may"
just meant "if they are any ids in the document".  So
we will remove that sentence and change the first word
of the following sentence from "If" to "When".

Re:  First comment on App E.  He's wrong.  We will 
change "Parser are required to" to "The XML Recommendation
requires parsers to".

Re:  next two comments on App E.  We will change
"kinds" to "steps" and "additional normalization(s)" 
to "additional normalization step(s)".

Henry says we have positive responses from 16 or 17
AC reps.

Norm will produce/post a diff version and we will ask
interested parties (including ERH) to confirm that none
of the changes are substantive.

> 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.
> Chris started the discussion on the XML CG list--see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2005Jul/thread.html#15

The XML CG will continue to discuss it for a while.

> [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/2005Aug/0012
> [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, 31 August 2005 16:06:20 UTC

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