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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 June 29

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:31:30 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C0305332421@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
Paul 
Glenn 
Norm
Leonid
Richard
Henry
François
Daniel

[7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 9]

Regrets
------- 
John


Absent organizations
--------------------
John Cowan (with regrets)
Lew Shannon


Regrets from Richard for July 6 and 13
Regrets from Norm July 6
Regrets from Paul July 13
Regrets from DV for July 20


> 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.
> 
> 
> 3.  XLink update.
> 
> The first WD of XLink 1.1 has been published:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050428/
> 
> The Issues/DoC list is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/04/xlink11/wd-status/
> 
> Paul sent pre-notice to chairs about upcoming LC of XLink 1.1:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2005AprJun/0075
> 
> Norm produced an LC-ready draft of XLink 1.1, now at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/
> 

The draft is the same as the first WD.

CONSENSUS to take this draft of XLink 1.1 to LC.

> ACTION to Paul:  Double-check the status section.

ACTION to Paul:  Continued.

ACTION to Paul:  Send in the pub request.

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 7. xml:id.
> 
> The CR was published (2005 Feb 8) at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-xml-id-20050208/
> 
> 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
> 
> The PR issue/DoC is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xml-id/cr-status/status-report.html
> 
> Paul sent out the xml:id PR request at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Jun/0054
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Schedule a PR call.

In progress.

> 
> 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.
> 
> ChrisL has acknowledged his action but has not yet
> passed anything on to the XML CG.

And so we wait.

> 
> 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.

And so we wait.

> 
> 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 if it satisfies
> the commentors (or as close to that as we can get).
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Check with Mike Champion (done) and 
> Ashok Malhotra (ongoing) as to whether this wording 
> would satisfy the issue.

Henry is not getting a response from Ashok, but we
will continue as planned in this case.

> ACTION to DV:  Add this to the XInclude PE document 
> with the resolution as suggested above.

ACTION to DV continued.

> 
> [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/2005Jun/0044
> [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, 29 June 2005 15:31:38 GMT

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