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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 February 2

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 12:02:56 -0500
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C0302F1A64D@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
Paul 
Glenn  
Anjana
Norm 
Leonid
Richard
Henry
John  xx:14

[7 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 11]

Regrets
------- 
Daniel
Sandra
François
Lew, proxy to the chair

Absent organizations
--------------------
NIST (with regrets)
Daniel Veillard (with regrets)
François Yergeau (with regrets)
Lew Shannon (with regrets, 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).

Daniel shouldn't have been listed under "Absent organizations"
since he was listed under attendees (albeit, arriving late).

Accepted with the above modification.

> 
> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia.
> 
> The next W3C Technical Plenary Week will be 28 February 2005
> through 4 March 2005:
>      http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html
>      http://www.w3.org/2004/12/allgroupoverview.html 
> 
> The XML Core WG f2f meeting days will be Thursday and Friday, 
> March 3rd and 4th.  Wednesday is the Plenary day to which all
> XML Core WG members are invited.
> 
> Register for the meeting at: 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TP2005/
> 
> Register at the hotel: 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/allgroupoverview.html#Venue. 
> The negotiated room rate at the meeting hotel, Hyatt Harborside, 
> http://harborside.hyatt.com/property/index.jhtml is $139 (plus 
> 12.45% tax); this discount rate expires 5 February 2005.
> 

Feb 5 is this Saturday!

> We have a tentative meeting time with the TAG on Thursday
> right after lunch during the Tech Plen week in case we have 
> something to discuss with them by then.
> 
> 
> 3.  XLink update.
> 
> Our WG Note "Extending XLink 1.0" has been published:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xlink10-ext-20050127/
> 
> In approving publication, TBL asked about our point 2.
> 
> After our WG telcon last week, Paul had replied at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2005JanMar/0029
> but there was still a question about just what XLink says.
> 
> JohnC sent email with his suggested wording changes at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Jan/0067
> 
> Paul has recorded these pointers on our Group page.

ACTION to Paul:  Raise the question of a charter modification
with the XML CG.

> 
> 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.
> 
>   Ongoing ACTION to Richard:  Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed.
> 
> Paul checked with W3C folks about whether we can
> fold editorial errata from 1.1 back into 1.0 2nd Ed
> and our plan is acceptable:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0041
> 
> Richard pointed out a namespace comment at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2004Dec/0000
> which requests something which is almost a different kind of schema.
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Send email outlining the issue and your suggested
> resolution.

ACTION continued.

> 
> 6. Xinclude Rec was published 2004 December 30 at:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xinclude-20041220/
> 
> It has been brought to my attention that we apparently failed
> to look at the public XInclude comments list for comments
> received during the PR review which is basically the October
> archives for this list:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2004Oct/
> We will treat these are errata.  
> 
> DV volunteers to be editor of the XInclude errata process.
> 
> ACTION to DV:  Create a PE document for XInclude.

ACTION continued.

> 
> 7. xml:id.
> 
> Our Last Call of xml:id is published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/
> 
> The CR-ready draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2005/01/CR-xml-id-20050203/

The latest is now at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2005/02/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
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC to reflect our latest decisions 
> and recent emails and to give it links and colors to highlight 
> issues that will need discussion on the CR telcon.

Done.

> 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/
> 
> Paul sent in the CR request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2005JanMar/0030
> 
> The CR call is scheduled for this Friday morning with
> possible publication on Feb 8th or so.

Henry reraised Ian's two objections and suggests that
we change our terminology from "id assignment" to
"id type assignment".  Norm pushes back.

But the key thing seems to be to avoid having xml:id
imply that elements must be assigned ids, but rather
that what we're doing is "associating idness" to xml:id
attributes.

An XML Schema with two attributes declared type id
on the same element is an invalid schema.  There
would have to be a change to the spec to fix this.

We decided to add:

 The process of "ID type assignment" causes an xml:id
 attribute value to be an ID.  This is often achieved
 by changing the type of the attribute to be "ID" in 
 the infoset or PSVI, but that is not the only possible 
 mechanism.

 Application-level processing of IDs, including which
 elements can be actually be addressed by which ID
 values, is beyond the scope of this specification.

ACTION to Norm: Update the spec and DoC document;
send email to Ian requesting a response.

We hope the above satisfies one of Ian's issue.

Re: Ian's issue about normalizing xml:id values,
we agree with Ian that this will not break existing 
documents, but does mean that new documents will have 
different serialisations based on whether the UA 
supports xml:id or not.  This is unavoidable.


We had another comment from I18N about whether ids
were XML 1.0 names or XML 1.1 names:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005Feb/0001

We want to allow NCName's for xml:id values where
NCName is defined by the version of the NS spec
that is relevant to the document.  Norm has the
exact wording.

ACTION to Norm:  Make this change to the document
and process the comment, DoC, etc.

Richard found the word "valid" in section 8, and
Norm is going to change that.


> [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/2005Jan/0065
> [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, 2 February 2005 17:03:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:32 GMT