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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 June 1

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 12:40:47 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C0304C23F55@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
June 1, 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 XML Core WG reviewed the QA Framework Last Call and had
some issues:
The QA WG responsed at 
Paul sent in an individual (non-WG) Objection to resolution 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]. 

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

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.

Richard sent email at:
Elliotte replied that this didn't help.  After more WG 
discussion, we had:

CONSENSUS:  We will change the must to a should, remove
"to the application", and add the sentence:

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

We will plan to request PR for xml:id sometime in June 
after the AC meeting.

Paul sent out a draft xml:id PR request at:

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.

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

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 about possible differences between 
what RFC 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.

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."

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.

[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/0057
[8] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata
[9] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V11-1e-errata
Received on Sunday, 29 May 2005 16:40:55 UTC

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