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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 May 25

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 11:50:02 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C0304B13798@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 Glenn xx:17

[6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 10]


Absent organizations
Daniel Veillard
Lew Shannon

> 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 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
> Paul sent "holding" email in response to the QA response at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005May/0054
> and Karl answered at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005May/0055
> Paul remains confused and concerned; if he is the only
> one, we'll let this drop, but since others seemed to have
> concerns in the past, we'll try to find out one more time.

We discussed this once more.  Other WG members shared
some of Paul's concerns/confusion, but we decided not
to make a WG statement.

ACTION to Paul:  Post an individual reply to www-qa 
and point the XML Core WG to that reply in case anyone
else cares to say anything further.

> 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/
> 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
> 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.

ACTION to DV continue.

> 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
> 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.

ACTION to Norm 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.

Richard is leaning toward changing the MUST to SHOULD
but still maintain a strong presumption of reporting
if at all feasible.

In the interest of interoperability, it is strongly
recommended that xml:id errors not be silently ignored.

CONSENSUS:  We will change the must to a should, remove
"to the application", and add the above "interest of
interoperability" sentence.

> 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.
> Paul figured we should shoot for request for PR for xml:id
> sometime in June after the AC meeting.

ACTION to Paul:  Draft the PR request.

> 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.

ACTION to Henry 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.
> 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 on this:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0077
about possible differences between what 2396 and 3986 say
about base URIs.
> ACTION to Henry, Norm:  Ensure the TAG is aware of this thread
> and let us know if they have anything to say.

ACTION to Henry, Norm continued.

> 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.

Progress, but still ongoing.  Henry will report next week.

> [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/0052
> [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, 25 May 2005 15:50:16 UTC

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