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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 March 9

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:44:32 -0500
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C03038E9C62@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 Daniel  xx:10
 Lew  xx:10

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


Absent organizations
IBM (with regrets)
John Cowan

> 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).


> Also, accepting the minutes from our f2f:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm


JohnC noted:

In PEX6: whether or not an initial U+FFEF is part of a 
text/plain document (or in our case, a document which is 
being treated as text/plain) depends on the character encoding.  
If it's UTF-{8,16,32}, then no, it's a BOM and should be 
discarded.  If it's UTF-{16,32}{LE,BE}, then yes, it's a
ZWNBSP character and should be kept.

> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.

Those who attended last week's Technical Plenary are
asked to fill out a survey:

> The WG needs to review the Binary XML documents:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xbc-measurement-20050224/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xbc-properties-20050224/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xbc-use-cases-20050224/ 
> Paul will look at them, and we need another volunteer 
> (Norm is reviewing them already for the TAG).

Dmitry, who is on the XBC WG, is also familiar with 
the documents.

He recommends waiting until next Thursday to review
the measurement documents which will be changing
(the other two are ready for review).  There will
be a fourth document, Characterization, that will
be published on or soon after next Thursday.

ACTION to Lew:  Review the documents and report to
the WG by the end of March.

> Richard has been volunteered to review the 
> XPath 2.0/XQuery 1.0 Data Model document, to be published 
> as a LC WD in late March or early April (though there are 
> no plans to make any changes to it at this time, so the
> review can start at any time).
> ACTION to Richard:  Review the XPath 2.0/XQuery 1.0 Data 
> Model document:  


Norm says the two key areas for XML Core to review are
Constructing a datamodel from an infoset and constructing 
an infoset from the datamodel.

Richard remembers there being something strange about 
the PSVI, and he wants to check on that too.

> 3.  XLink update.
> Our WG Note "Extending XLink 1.0" has been published:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xlink10-ext-20050127/
> A charter modification has gone to the AC:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2005JanMar/0036
> While we aren't quite chartered for this yet, we did
> discuss it some at our f2f:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#xlink
> 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]. 
> See the discussion of IRIs and the "MAY" paragraph
> under item 5. Namespaces in XML below (which actually
> occurred during our f2f under the XLink discussion).
> We need to make some IRI related errata to XML 1.0 
> and 1.1 (for system ids). 

Note this does NOT mean that we would change the 
reference to 2396 to now be 3986 because that could
imply other changes.

ACTION to Richard:  Draft wording for the erratum 
to XML 1.0 and 1.1 updating the IRI wording (and
referencing the MAY paragraph).

> 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.  We would 
> therefore put in wording that allows us to say "IRI but 
> note the 'MAY' paragraph" without making values with 
> spaces (and such) invalid.
> ACTION to Richard:  Process an erratum to NS 1.1 to
> refer to RFC 3987: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt

ACTION to Richard continued.

Actually, 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.

> 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.
> We discussed this at our f2f.  We don't this is within 
> the scope of the namespace spec or our WG charter.
> ACTION to Richard:  Respond to this comment (on the 
> xml-names-editor list).

ACTION to Richard 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.
> Our XInclude potential errata document is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/proposed-xinclude-errata
> ACTION to DV:  Make corrections, additions as outlined
> in Paul's email at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Feb/0064

ACTION to DV continued.

> We discussed XInclude errata at our f2f; see
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#xinclude
> for the details.
> ACTION to DV:  Update the xinclude PE document with
> our latest decisions.  Add the comments from the
> October and November archives.

ACTION to DV continued.

> 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.  
> We discussed this at our f2f, both among ourselves:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#xml-id
> and with the TAG:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#tag-c14n
> We are continuing with xml:id as it stands.
> We will make C14N a separate task once our charter has
> been amended to allow that.
> ACTION to Norm:  Do some work on the xml:id test suite
> to get it more usable.

ACTION to Norm continued.

> 7.5  Meaning of namespace.
> This came out of xml:id and C14N, but is separable.
> The XML Core WG should make the policy for adding 
> names to the xml namespace explicit in the namespace 
> document for this namespace
> ACTION to Henry:  Suggest modifications to the XML
> namespace document and send to the XML Core list
> for approval.

ACTION to Henry continued (Paul to check with Henry on this).

> 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
> We discussed this at our f2f, both among ourselves:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#xml-stylesheet-pi
> and with the TAG:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#tag-sspi
> If anything, our discussions expanded the scope of the issue.
> Henry will probably raise some form of this as a TAG issue; 
> the WG plan is to wait for the TAG to take the heat. 
> Paul will ensure we have coordination with the Hypertext CG on this.
> 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. 
> We decided that the Infoset references xml:base which 
> references RFC 2396 which makes base URI always absolute, 
> so although some of us prefer making it explicit in the 
> Infoset, we DECIDED not to bother.
> Henry explains his view that we need to allow frag ids 
> in [base URI]. However, the last sentence of the first 
> paragraph of section 5.1 of RFC 3986 says "If the base 
> URI is obtained from a URI reference, then that reference 
> must be converted to absolute form and stripped of any 
> fragment component prior to its use as a base URI."
> Since the infoset and xml:base refer to 2396, it's not 
> clear whether the fragment identifier is part of the 
> infoset's [base URI] or not as life stands today. 
> We didn't resolve just what if anything to do about this.

Richard: In 2396, base URIs can have fragment identifiers,
but this doesn't matter because they aren't used when doing
absolutization or determining if there is a same document ref.

In 3986, base URIs don't have fragment ids, and again this 
doesn't matter for resolution, but it is essential that it
be stripped off for the determine of whether something is a
same document reference.

In the infoset, we do expose the base URI as a property, and 
if we were to switch xml:base and XML itself from 2396 to 
3986, the value of the base URI property would be different.
Richard isn't sure we want to do that.

ACTION to Richard:  Draft a message for Roy et al. and send
to the XML Core WG for discussion (later, to be sent to
the uri group and the tag).

Should we change [base URI] to [base IRI]?  There are
issues to decide here.  We will hold off on doing anything
here for now.

> paul
> [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/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, 9 March 2005 18:17:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:34 UTC