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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 December 14

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:08:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302019DC0CA@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
December 14, from
          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
          16:00-17:00 UTC
          16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
          17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
          21:30-22:30 in most of India
on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#.
We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 .

See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents
and other information.  If you have additions to the agenda, please
email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon.

Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and
completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it
at the beginning of the call.

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.

We are planning a f2f at the Technical Plenary 27 Feb-3 March 2006
in Cannes, France.  The XML Core WG is currently scheduled to
meet Thursday and Friday, March 2-3 of that week.
See http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html though there 
is really nothing there yet about the 2006 meeting.


Chris Lilley asks about xml:base and IRI:

Norm thinks we should change the bib ref from 2986
to 3986.  Section 3.1 should say any xml:base should
first have spaces escaped to %20 and then have the
IRI changed to a URI per 3987.

We should have uniform language for XLink 1.1, XLink 1.0,
xml:base, xinclude, XML 1.0, and XML 1.1 (as errata for 
all but XLink 1.1).

There is some question as to whether we should bother
to make an erratum for XLink 1.0, but we did not resolve

We basically want to put the text that is in XLink 1.1 into
the other specs.

It's possible that the language in XLink 1.1 might need
tweaking so that the exact same language will fit into
all the specs.

ACTION to Francois:  Look at the language in XLink 1.1
and suggest some version of it that works in all the
relevant specs.


I18N asks us to review the "Internationalized Tag Set (ITS)"
Working Draft.  See
for more discussion and pointers.

JohnC read this and thinks there are no issues for us.

Francois agrees.

ACTION to Paul:  Send in such a comment.

3.  XLink update.

The LC WD of XLink 1.1 has been published:

We have comments at

ACTION to Norm:  Reply as feasible and bring issues worth
discussing to the WG via email.

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]. 

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

JohnC did a scan for MUST/SHOULD and reported at
John thought most of the mays were not official mays.

This is now PE 148.

ACTION to Henry:  Review the MAYs again and create
a marked up version with changes.

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:
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:

Our XInclude potential errata document is at:

Daniel has updated the Errata document at

7. xml:id is a Recommendation, published 2005 Sept 9:

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

9.  C14N is listed in our charter:

 Canonical XML version 1.1

 The work on xml:id uncovered some inconsistencies
 in Canonical XML version 1.0 (see xml:id CR,
 Appendix C, "Impacts on Other Standards"). The
 Working Group will produce a new version of
 Canonical XML to address those inconsistencies,
 as well as others that might be discovered at a
 later stage.

We have CONSENSUS that we have been chartered to do a 1.1
and that we should not try to do this as an erratum.

We are not sure how best to do this as a 1.1.  We should try
to elaborate the possible ways of handling this and ask the
C14N community how best to go about this.  For example, if
we create a new namespace for C14N 1.1, what do we say the 
old namespace means?  We'd like to avoid the flak we are
getting for XML 1.1.

We should probably use the existing mailing list
w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org to gather opinions.

Glenn posted an email to w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org explaining
we are doing a 1.1 and asking for how we can minimize disruption:

10.  Henry added a "forking QNames" item:

We had some discussion last week.

Norm argues that we should object to the use of the
QName syntax for things that aren't QNames.  He also
objects to the invention of a new mechanism for declaring
things that look like namespaces when they aren't really.

Norm is still trying to understand whether there is an
issue yet, and he needs to wait until they publish a
document to be sure.

ACTION to Norm:  Raise this concern at the TAG level
at the appropriate time.

11.  Henry raises that RFC 3023 is out of date and the draft
replacement has expired.  Henry says there is a new draft
expected soon (Murata-san will send something to Chris to
publish soon).  

Chris is still hoping that he and Murata will be able
to publish a new ID for 3023bis soon.

[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/2005Dec/0003
[8] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata
[9] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V11-1e-errata
Received on Monday, 12 December 2005 20:10:43 UTC

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