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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 February 16

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:03:12 -0500
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C030330F861@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
 Paul 
 Glenn  
 Arnaud  xx:13
 Dmitry
 Norm 
 Leonid
 Henry
 Philippe
 John 
 François  off at xx:42
 Daniel

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

Regrets
------- 
Sandra
Richard

Absent organizations
--------------------
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.
> 
> 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 meeting time with the TAG the end of Thursday morning.
> We might find ourselves discussing "XML 2.0".

Registration for the week ends this Friday.

> 
> 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?).

Philippe has sent it to XML CG and W3M.  He has not gotten
any more feedback.  It's ready for TBL to review and then
send to the AC.
http://www.w3.org/2005/02/xml-core-wg-charter.html

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.

Progress has been made, but ACTION is ongoing.

> 
> 7. xml:id.
> 
> The CR was published (2005 Feb 8) at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/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
> 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/
> 
> The issue of xml:id vrs C14N and the definition of
> namespaces is ongoing, originally in the xml:id 
> comments list and now on the www-tag list.  It seems
> likely that the TAG will pick up some issue out of this.
> 
> I'm not sure how or if this should affect our CR period,
> but for now, I'm assuming it doesn't.

Norm has asked for this topic to be on the TAG's telcon
next week (Tuesday afternoon).

Norm will need to do some work on the test suite.

> 
> 8.  Associating stylesheets
>     We have had several requests to issue some clarifications
>     on use of fragment identifiers in URIs to referenced
>     stylesheets:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Feb/0022
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Feb/0030

Henry explained that Bert Bos had a question about using
fragment identifiers in the href for xml-stylesheet to
access a subtree of the stylesheet.  Bert points out that
browsers wouldn't handle such frag ids, so we should 
clarify the stylesheet (SS) Rec as to what should be the case.

The SS spec says that the PI's type pseudo-attribute semantics
are punted to the HTML spec which isn't clear.

Neither Bert nor Henry thinks we should define a fragment id
for text/css, but that the resource should be retrieved per
the URI (not counting the frag id), then any frag id would
be interpreted according to the type of the retrieved resource
to produce what the SS PI refers to.  Then, the application
using the SS PI may look at the type pseudo-attribute to
help it how to interpret the returned (sub-)resource.

Norm: frag id are interpreted by the mime type sent back
by the server (so the type pseudo-att is ignored until
whatever (sub-)resource is returned and determined).

The SS spec could say what to do for various type's
(including what might be acceptable/erroneous).

[The replacement to RFC 2396 is 3986.]

We had general CONSENSUS to do something to clarify
the SS spec.

John thinks we can do this by issuing a clarificatory 
erratum.  Paul tends to agree, though done in coordination
with the HTML/CSS WGs.  Henry is less sure, and wants to 
know more about what the HTML CG thinks.  The problem is
that the HTML spec "defines" the semantics of the type
attribute, but we want the SS spec to do so.

ACTION to Paul:  Follow up with the XML CG in terms of
coordination.

John says we should deprecate the charset pseudo-attr
of the SS PI.

DV worries about rat-holing.

> 
> 9.  absolutivity of [base URI]
>     Norm has asked a question about the absolutivity of [base URI]:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Feb/0031

Norm thinks we should make an erratum to the infoset spec
that says that the [base URI] is always absolute (unless
there is no absolute [base URI] at all for the resource).

XML Base bullet point 1 in 4.2 isn't clear enough.
The second bullet of 4.3 does help.

John interprets 5.1 of RFC 2396 to say that base-URIs
are absolute, but Paul doesn't agree that this is clear.

We have CONSENSUS that the [base URI] is always absolute.

We have CONSENSUS to make a clarificatory erratum to the 
Infoset that indicates that [base URI] should always be
absolute (unless it's impossible).  

Henry thought we needed to allow frag ids in [base URI].
We ran out of time here--to be picked up next week.

> 
> 10. XML 1.1 and C1 control characters
>     Norm has raised a question about the need to escape C1 control
>     characters in XML 1.1 (which is backward incompatible 
>     with XML 1.0):
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Feb/0033 

We did not get to this topic, but please discuss in email
between now and next week.

> 
> [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/2005Feb/0020
> [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, 16 February 2005 17:03:20 GMT

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