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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 May 11

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:07:25 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C03046FA522@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
May 11, from
          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
          15:00-16:00 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.

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 new XML Core WG charter has been approved.
The Call for Participation is out, and everyone on the WG
has to have their AC rep submit their name as a member in
the rechartered WG by May 20th:

We've received a response from the QA group on our
comment about QA Framework.  See Paul's message
summarizing this at

3.  XLink update.

The first WD of XLink 1.1 has been published:

The Issues/DoC list is at:

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]. 

We had a question about the XML Test Suite arise; see

Awaiting response from Richard.

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:
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:

Our XInclude potential errata document is at:

for our PE document which is awaiting updating by DV.

ACTION to DV:  Update the XInclude PE document with the resolutions.

7. xml:id.

The CR was published (2005 Feb 8) at

The (public) xml:id LC issues is at:
The LC DoC is at:
Our implementation report is at
We have a test suite cover page at

Norm sent some email at
and a sample of his implementation feedback at

Richard put his implementation report at

On the last test, Norm fails because XSLT can't do it.
Norm gets a space in it that shouldn't be there.  When
Richard runs it, he gets the empty string for the result.
That is, Norm and Richard got different results
out of their XSLT processors.  We thought this might
have to do with being normalized twice (or something).

ACTION to Norm:  Investigate why Richard and Norm are
getting different results from their XSLT processor
for the last test.

DV's results are at:
Norm put them someone on the W3C server, but I can't
find them.

ACTION to Norm:  Organize http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id/
better.  Have the overview aka index point to the various
reports.  Also augment 
to point to the various reports.

We discussed changing wording about errors so that an xml-id
processor doesn't need to report errors *to the application*.

In Section 6 Errors, we currently say:

  A violation of the constraints in this specification
  results in an xml:id error. Such errors are not fatal,
  but must be reported by the xml:id processor to the
  application invoking it.

ACTION to Richard:  Suggest some rewording for this and
pass it by ERH.

Paul sent email to the CSS WG about xml:id:
and there have been a slew of responses, but I think we're 
mostly agreeing except perhaps on the details of just how
to word things in the CSS spec.

8.  Associating stylesheets--awaiting TAG action.

Henry noticed that the HTML CG has run into the same issue.
There is an interaction between media types and secondary
resource, and there appears to be no consensus on the HTML CG
as to what should be the case.

Henry asked the HTML CG if they felt this issue should be
taken to the TAG, but Henry isn't getting a single voice 
out of the HTML CG.  He will continue to work on this.

ACTION to Henry:  Continue to see if this issue should
be brought to the TAG.

9.  absolutivity of [base URI]
    Norm has asked a question about the absolutivity of [base URI]:

We discussed this at our f2f:

We have CONSENSUS that base URIs are always absolute. 

Then we had a further issue about base URIs in the infoset.

Richard sent email to www-tag on this:

ACTION to Richard:  Review the responses.

10.  XML Validity and DTD dependence.
  Rich Saltz started the discussion at
and there have been several sub-threads.  

Rich Salz attended (the beginning of) last week's telcon,
and we had a thorough discussion (and Rich later approved
the minutes for this agenda item in private email to me).
This item is now closed as far as the WG is concerned.
Any potential followup is now in Rich's court.

11.  XInclude, schema validity-assessment, xml:base and xml:lang

Henry kicked this off at:

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."

We will this during this week's telcon to see if we are 
willing to add that phrase.

[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/2005May/0005
[8] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata
[9] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V11-1e-errata
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 15:12:12 UTC

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