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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 December 14

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:06:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30201B1FB3B@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
 Paul
 Ravi, CDAC (on IRC)
 Norm
 Leonid
 Henry
 Richard
 Daniel
 François 

[7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------  
Glenn  
John

Absent organizations
--------------------
IBM (with regrets)
John Cowan (with regrets)
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).

Accepted.

> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.

We will plan to meet next week.

There is no telcon on Dec 28th.  We will plan to have
a telcon on 2006 January 4.

> 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:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0004
> 
> 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
> this.
> 
> 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.

ACTION to Francois continued.

> ---
> 
> I18N asks us to review the "Internationalized Tag Set (ITS)"
> Working Draft.  See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Nov/0031
> 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.

Done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2005Dec/0001
(or so, though I don't see it there yet)

> 
> 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.

>From thread 1: XLink 1.1: Open issues? 
Anne van Kesteren: Thoughts on XLink 1.1
-----------------------------------------
CONSENSUS to say this this is beyond the scope of
what we were chartered to do in XLink 1.1.

Thread 2--awaiting reply

Thread 3--accepted to update references

Thread 4-6 -- awaiting reply

Thread 7--XPointer reference 
----------------------------
Norm is now suggesting rewording to refer to the media type,
and he thinks he has text to address this.

CONSENSUS to accept Norm's suggested text.

Thread 8--awaiting reply

Thread 9--XML Base confusion 
----------------------------
How XML Base interacts with IRIs.

Paul asks how this differs from the item under agenda item 2.
(Still not clear to me, but maybe it's not the same.)

But it appears that this comment is a request to process an
erratum against XML Base.

CONSENSUS to reply that we do have a plan to process an
erratum against XML Base, but this comment does not affect
XLink 1.1.

Thread 10--editorial

Thread 11--"URI reference" "checking" 
-------------------------------------
We say an RFC 3986 says we don't have to check URIs (IRIs), 
but in fact it doesn't.

Norm suggests we remove the wording that refers to RFC 3986,
but still leave the wording saying we don't require checking.

Henry suggests we should say "There is no conformance req
for applications to check uri reference syntax per xxxx."
(Norm to reword.)

Richard suggests we point out that XLink 1.0 had no such
requirement, so we're not changing anything.

CONSENSUS with the above decision.

Thread 12 and 13--awaiting reply.

Thread 14--default xmlns attribute values 
-----------------------------------------
Anti-external subset comment.  We could add a note about
how not everything reads the external subset, but we don't
see anything wrong with having an example of a perfectly
reasonable use of valid XML.

CONSENSUS for the editor (Norm) to adds notes.

Thread 15--awaiting reply

Thread 16--Xlink vs "legacy" linking 
------------------------------------
What to do with both and xlink and href attribute on the same tag?

That's not up to the XLink spec, it's up to the application.

CONSENSUS: The semantics of xlink and href attributes are
independent, and the interaction of outside the scope of
XLink 1.1 (or even this WG).

Thread 17--Animation 
--------------------
Interaction of XLink and SMIL.  Is an XLink title animatable.

CONSENSUS:  Outside the scope of XLink.  If anything, this
is something SMIL should discuss.

Norm will craft a reply.

Thread 18--Integration with CSS 
-------------------------------
Interaction of XLink and CSS.

Henry:  We can add a sentence to simple link and complex link
that makes these links hyperlinks source anchors.  DV added
some detail to the suggestion.

Norm will take a stab at some wording.

Thread 19--Schema issues 
------------------------
Comments on the schema for xlink.

ACTION to Henry:  Think about and reply to this one.

Thread 20--integration with existing markup 
-------------------------------------------
Duplicate of thread 16.

Thread 21--integration with CSS 
-------------------------------
Duplicate of thread 18.


> 
> 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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0015
> 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.

ACTION to Henry 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
> 
> Daniel has updated the Errata document at
> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata 
> 
> 
> 7. xml:id is a Recommendation, published 2005 Sept 9:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-xml-id-20050909/
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Dec/0001
> 
> 
> 10.  Henry added a "forking QNames" item:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Nov/0000
> 
> 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
> [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, 14 December 2005 17:07:34 UTC

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