- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:34:36 -0400
- To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87wtpwpmyb.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Attendees
---------
Norm [chairing]
François Yergeau
Arnaud
Daniel
Glenn
Philippe
Lew Shannon xx:26
Regrets
-------
Paul
Richard
Absent
------
Dmitry
Leonid
Henry
John
Norm gives likely regrets for 25 May. Will try to call in.
| 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.
|
| 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:
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0006
|
| The XML Core WG reviewed the QA Framework Last Call and had
| some issues:
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jan/0025
| The QA WG response at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005May/0041
| left many of us unsatisfied. See
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005May/0004
| summarizing things and giving other pointers.
| See also the thread starting at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005May/0042
| If the WG can agree on some statement, I think we should send it in
| before the end of the day this Wednesday. If the WG does not have
| consensus to send anything, then individual WG members should feel
| free to send comments. If nothing else, we owe it to all to make a
| statement at Last Call time so that we are justified in re-raising
| the issue at later stages.
No group statement was suggested. Individual members are encouraged
to send their comments. Perhaps we'll revisit next week?
| 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/
No update this week.
| 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
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0037
|
| Awaiting response from Richard.
Continued to next week.
| 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.
Norm observes that it would be nice to have a 2nd edition that
incorporates the errata (esp. the erratum about not rebinding the XML
Namespace).
| 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
Continued.
| 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
|
| See
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0029
| for our PE document which is awaiting updating by DV.
|
| ACTION to DV: Update the XInclude PE document with the resolutions.
DV thinks he's done most of the work but it hasn't been committed yet.
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/
|
| Norm sent some email at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0023
| and a sample of his implementation feedback at
| http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id/xmlidfilter-report
|
| Richard put his implementation report at
| http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id/rxp-report.html
|
| 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.
Norm's implementation was broken.
| DV's results are at:
| http://veillard.com/xmlidresult.html
| 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
| http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id-implementation.html
| to point to the various reports.
Continued.
| 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.
|
| Richard sent email at:
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005May/0006
| Elliotte replied that this didn't help; DV responded, then
| Richard and Elliotte had another exchange (just before I
| sent out this agenda).
|
| Paul sent email to the CSS WG about xml:id:
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0091
| and there have been a slew of responses, but I think we're
| mostly agreeing except perhaps on the details. Doesn't
| seem to be anything we need to do here.
Norm just got back from vacation; continued.
| Paul figured we should shoot for request for PR for xml:id
| sometime in June after the AC meeting.
Yes, assuming the editor can pull together the various documents
quickly.
| 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.
Continued.
| 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.
|
| Richard sent email to www-tag on this:
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0077
|
| ACTION to Henry, Norm: Ensure the TAG is aware of this thread
| and let us know if they have anything to say.
Continued.
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.
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.
| 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 and Ashok Malhotra
| as to whether this wording would satisfy the issue.
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/2005May/0040
| [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
Any other business?
None.
Adjourned.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 15:40:51 UTC