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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 February 9

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:00:09 -0500
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <8765111xeu.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com> was heard to say:
| Agenda
| ======

Attendees
---------
Henry
Norm
Paul
John
Richard
Dmitry

Regrets
-------
Sandra
Francois
Leonid

| 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.
|
| 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.
|
| We have a tentative meeting time with the TAG on Thursday
| has been RESCHEDULED to the end of Thursday morning.  We
| might find ourselves discussing "XML 2.0".
|
| 3.  XLink update.
|
| Our WG Note "Extending XLink 1.0" has been published:
| http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xlink10-ext-20050127/
|
| W3C staff have been asked to start drafting an XML Core WG
| charter modification that would (if approved by the AC)
| allow us to work on XLink 1.0.  Said charter mod will also
| probably hand us maintenance of the C14N spec(s?).

In progress.

| 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]. 

Continued.

| 5. Namespaces in XML.
|
|   Ongoing ACTION to Richard:  Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed.

Continued.

| 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.

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.

Continued.

DV reports in email that he's working on it.

| 7. xml:id.
[...]
| We had a successful CR telcon, and publication of the
| CR is scheduled for Feb 8th.

The CR was published: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/

Norm introduces the latest debate from the xml-id comments list.

Richard: accepting their arguments would imply that we've reserved the
XML namespace but we can't do anything about it.

John: that may be the case.

Richard: but that's not what we intended.

Henry summarizes ERH's comment.

Henry: it seems that before we go to PR, we should fix C14N and then
this comment will no longer apply.

Norm points out that it'll be a long time before any revision to C14N
becomes widely deployed because it's in all sorts of security and
encryption software.

John: that's why I think the XML namespace may be closed to us, except
for properties that can be inherited.

Henry: we should try to see if some of the major vendors actually
implement the C14N spec or if they only copy xml:lang and xml:space.

Richard: and see if they do xml:base wrong.

Henry: it wouldn't surprise me if they only copy the attributes they
knew about.

Paul: I'm a little concerned that we're thinking about picking up C14N.

John: if we try to fix C14N, we may find ourselves in the same
position as we are with XML 1.1.

What uses C14N? A little digging reveals

  XML-DSig, certainly.
  Encryption requires C14N.
  SOAP 1.2 Message Normalization. (A Note)
  Probably baked into profiles at places like WS-I.

John: I think it's not a question that 5-6 of us are going to solve
here. We need to bump this up the management stack.

Paul: what are our options?

 1. We can say we're using the XML namespace and C14N is broken
 2. We could invent xmlid:id (requires namespace declaration)
 3. We could use xmlid

Humerous suggestion that we search for a Unicode character that looks
like a colon omitted by the minute taker :-)

Bump this to the TAG?

Richard: Are Recommendations like C14N allowed to break XML?

John: I think I actually prefer the colon-less xmlid.

Henry: I favor xml:id.

Some discussion of what exactly the problem is.

  <chapter xml:id="foo" xml:lang="en">
    <para/>
    <para/>
    <para/>
  </chapter>

Performing C14N on /chapter/para produces:

  <para xml:id="foo" xml:lang="en"/>
  <para xml:id="foo" xml:lang="en"/>
  <para xml:id="foo" xml:lang="en"/>

This is right for xml:lang, but clearly wrong for xml:base if the
URIs are relative. Though C14N does say that the application should
make all URIs absolute.

Some discussion of whether or not we could fix C14N by erratum.
Probably not, but maybe if all implementations actually don't do what
the spec currently says. (Unlikely)

Paul: Is the architectural principle here that all attributes added to
the xml: namespace must have hierarchical semantics? That's what we
should ask the TAG.

ACTION: Henry to raise this issue with the TAG.

Norm, Henry, Richard, Dmitry prefer xml:id

John prefers xmlid

Paul is a little hard pressed to choose. Worried about restricting
the xml: namespace. Leans towards xml:id but there's a cost there.

ADJOURNED.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 17:00:21 GMT

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