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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 July 27

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:54:24 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C0305893DA2@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
Paul 
Glenn
Norm
Leonid
François
Philippe

[5 organizations (5 with proxies) present out of 9]

Regrets
------- 
Richard
Henry
Daniel

Absent organizations
--------------------
University of Edinburgh (with regrets)
John Cowan
Daniel Viellard (with regrets)
Lew Shannon
 
*************************************************************

We are CANCELLING XML Core WG telcons for the next 3 weeks.

The next telcon will be August 24th.

*************************************************************

> 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.

Philippe reported that XMLP sent in a PER for SOAP 1.2
that says that XML 1.1 is not conformant to SOAP 1.2.

The team suggested that, while the mime type can be
restricted to XML 1.0, the SOAP 1.2 Rec shouldn't
disallow use of XML 1.1 at the infoset level.

The Web Services Addressing Rec is also restricted 
to XML 1.0 at the abstract level.  The reason given was 
that XML Schema data types are defined in terms of XML 1.0.
They voted to continue to restrict things to XML 1.0.

Paul noted that, since NS 1.1 is tied to XML 1.1, one
cannot undeclare a namespace in XML 1.0.

Upcoming events are the PER for SOAP 1.2 and CR for 
Addressing and Last Call for WSDL.

> 
> 3.  XLink update.
> 
> The LC WD of XLink 1.1 has been published:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/
> 
> We already have a PILE of comments at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Reply as feasible and bring issues worth
> discussing to the WG via email.

XLink 1.1: XML Base confusion
-----------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/0009

XML Base references RFC 2396 and XLink references RFC 3987
(the IRI one) which references RFC 3986 (2396-bis) for
absolutization and such, but nothing has changed between
2396 and 3986 wrt absolutization.  So we don't see the problem.

ACTION to Norm:  Take this back to the commentor.

XLink 1.1: Error handling
-------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/0013

We say what the conformance criteria are but not what
to do when an error is encountered.  For example, what
should we do if someone specifies an invalid value for
one of the xlink:* attributes.

Francois points out that this hasn't changed since XLink 1.0.

ACTION to Norm:  Craft some words along the lines of error
handling being implementation dependent.

XLink 1.1: XLink 1.1 in XML 1.1
-------------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/0012

Norm suggests we just say that XLink works for both XML 1.0
and XML 1.1, and the names should just match the version
being used.

XLink 1.1: Integration with CSS
-------------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/0018

How does XLink interact with CSS's :link selector?

Francois suggests that we add a note that says "languages
such as CSS should see XLink links as links."

ACTION to Norm:  Respond to the commenter and to the CSS WG.

> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 PE document with all the resolutions
> except a new one--see agenda item 11 below.
> 
> We need to turn the PE document into an errata document.
> 
> ACTION to DV:  Produce a draft Errata document, using
> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata as a starting 
> point/template.
> 
> There have been some more XInclude test suite questions
> recently on the list:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2005Jul/
> ERH is fielding them to some extent, but it would be good
> to have someone else (Richard, Daniel?) take a look too.
> 
> 
> 7. xml:id.
> 
> The PR was published (2005 July 12) at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-xml-id-20050712/
> 
> The test suite is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xml-id/ 
> 
> The "central page" for the implementation report is
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id-implementation.html
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Henry thinks the XML CG should say one of two things:
> 
> 1.  Have Chris send it on to XML Core;
> 2.  Request guidance from above.
> 
> Henry thinks #1 is the correct next step.
> 
> Chris started the discussion on the XML CG list--see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2005Jul/thread.html#15
> I expect the CG to pass this issue on to us this week.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> We discussed this at our f2f:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#base-uri
> 
> We have CONSENSUS that base URIs are always absolute. 
> 
> Then we had a further issue about base URIs in the infoset.
> 
> DV asks if it's always possible to make a relative URI absolute.
> Consider a relative xml:base URI in a stream that has no base URI.
> 
> DV thinks his implementation doesn't expect the base URI to be
> absolute.
> 
> Richard says that, in this case, the Infoset does not define
> a base URI.  All base URIs defined by the Infoset are absolute,
> but we say nothing about a base URI defined by an application.
> 
> There is agreement that in the case where the base URI of an 
> infoset is absolute, that all base URI properties in that 
> infoset should be absolute.
> 
> Richard sent email to www-tag about possible differences between 
> what RFC 2396 and 3986 say about base URIs:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0077
> 
> HST spoke to Roy Fielding at the TAG meeting (2005 June 15ish), 
> and Roy will reply to Richard's email as a first step.
> 
> 
> 11.  XInclude, schema validity-assessment, xml:base and xml:lang
> 
> Henry kicked this off at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0039
> 
> XInclude requires xml:base fixup with adds xml:base
> attributes to a document.  This causes problems 
> validating the result against the original schema
> if that schema doesn't mention xml:base.
> 
> Norm wants the XML Schema group to have a mode that
> says "just assume all xml:* attributes are okay".
> 
> Henry points out we even have problems with validation
> against DTDs in this case.
> 
> It was suggested that we add to the XInclude spec:
> "An XInclude processor may, at user option, suppress
> xml:base and/or xml:lang fixup."
> 
> Note, since this is "at user option" [see the XML spec
> for the defn of "at user option"], all XInclude processors
> MUST support xml:base and xml:lang fixup, but they MAY
> provide a user-specifiable option to suppress such fixup.
> 
> We have CONSENSUS to add this phrase.
> 
> ACTION to DV:  Add this to the XInclude PE document 
> with the resolution as suggested above.
> 
> 
> 12. QT DM issue (from XML Core WG) Declaration base URI[10]
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Try to find some wording that allows 
> implementations that care to be more careful without 
> upsetting the QT groups by trying to impose additional 
> properties on all implementations.

Norm has implemented that change in the DM document.

> 
> [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/2005Jul/0011
> [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
> [10] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1296
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 15:55:04 GMT

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