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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 March 16

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:21:41 -0500
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C0303983DCB@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
March 16, from
          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
          16:00-17:00 UTC
          16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
          17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#.
We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 .

See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents
and other information.  If you have additions to the agenda, please
email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon.

Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and
completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it
at the beginning of the call.

Agenda
======
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).


2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.

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/ 

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 this 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 this 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:  
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xpath-datamodel-20050211/

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.

We should review the Compound Document Format (CDF) 
Use Cases and Requirements document:
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/Group/specs/CDR/usecases/1.0/cdr-use-cases-reqs.xml
which talks about "combining separate component technologies 
(e.g. XML-based languages, elements and attributes from 
separate namespaces)...[including]... compounding by 
reference and by inclusion."


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.  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

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).


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

We discussed XInclude errata at our f2f; see
http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#xinclude
for the details.

In response, 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.

François replies:

 FWIW, I agree with John that here the initial U+FEFF should be 
 considered a BOM and discarded, but I find some confusion in the above. 
  In the case presented in PEX6, it has been determined (through 
 defaulting) that the encoding is UTF-8, so all the rest about 
 UTF-{16,32} and UTF-{16,32}{LE,BE} is non sequitur.

ACTION to DV:  Update the xinclude PE document with
our latest decisions.  Add the comments from the
October and November archives.


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.


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.


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. 

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).

We asked if we should change [base URI] to [base IRI], but
there are various issues to decide here, and we decided to 
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/2005Mar/0010
[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 Monday, 14 March 2005 16:22:01 GMT

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