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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 Nov 2

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 12:03:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302013A836E@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 Ravi, CDAC

[8 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 10]

Leonid (through to Nov 16th)

Absent organizations
Lew Shannon  
John Cowan

We WILL meet next week.

We will be cancelling the telcon of the 16th 
(two weeks from now) due to the XML conference.

> 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.

We are planning a f2f at the Technical Plenary 27 Feb-3 March 2006
in Cannes, France.  The XML Core WG is currently scheduled to
meet Thursday and Friday, March 2-3 of that week.

See http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html though there 
is really nothing there yet about the 2006 meeting.

> Chris Lilley asks about xml:base and IRI:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0004
> Norm thinks we should change the bib ref from 2986
> to 3986.  Section 3.1 should say any xml:base should
> first have spaces escaped to %20 and then have the
> IRI changed to a URI per 3987.
> We should have uniform language for XLink 1.1, XLink 1.0,
> xml:base, xinclude, XML 1.0, and XML 1.1 (as errata for 
> all but XLink 1.1).
> There is some question as to whether we should bother
> to make an erratum for XLink 1.0, but we did not resolve
> this.
> ACTION to JohnC:  Compose some language for all the specs.

ACTION to JohnC continued.

> 3.  XLink update.
> The LC WD of XLink 1.1 has been published:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/
> We have comments at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 005JulSep/
> ACTION to Norm:  Reply as feasible and bring issues worth
> discussing to the WG via email.

ACTION to Norm continued.

> 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]. 
> ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document including
> issues raised on public-xml-testsuite@w3.org.

ACTION continued.

> We have a couple issues in the PE document in countdown
> until this telcon.

CONSENSUS to accept PEs 141, 146.

ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE and Errata documents.

> JohnC did a scan for MUST/SHOULD and reported at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0015
> Hnery would like to see a marked up version of the
> document highlighting the proposed changes.
> John agrees to do that.
> ACTION to John:  Review the MAYs again and create
> a marked up version with changes.

ACTION to John continued.

Norm passed on an XSLT comment about the word "semantics" at:

CONSENSUS to make the following changes:

The first occurrence of "semantics":

s/This specification does not constrain the semantics/
This specification does not constrain the application semantics/

The second occurrence of "semantic":


The string type may take any literal string as a value; 
the tokenized types have varying lexical and semantic constraints. 


The string type may take any literal string as a value; 
the tokenized types are more constrained. 

ACTION to Francois:  Process as a PE and put into countdown.

> 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
> Daniel has updated the Errata document at
> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata 
> Elliotte's results are not
> included in our Implementation Report at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xinclude-implementation/report.html
> as he reports in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/
> 2005Jul/0012
> ACTION to Richard:  Run ERH's tests through the other
> implementations and add the results to the XInclude IR.

Done except for DV's results and ERH's results.

> ERH's tests are in the CVS repository for the test suite.
> ACTION to Daniel:  Run ERH's tests through libxml and
> provide Richard with a report.

ACTION to Daniel continued.

> Richard will ask ERH for his results if he can't find them.

Asked, but not answered.

ACTION to Paul:  Ping ERH.

> 7. xml:id is a Recommendation, published 2005 Sept 9:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-xml-id-20050909/
> 8.  Associating stylesheets--awaiting TAG action.
> Henry reports that the HTML CG has been discussing this
> for a while.  They are developing a draft statement of
> the issue, and Chris Lilley will raise this at the XML CG.
> Chris started the discussion on the XML CG list--see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2005Jul/thread.html#15
> The XML CG will continue to discuss it for a while.
> 9.  C14N is listed in our charter:
>  Canonical XML version 1.1
>  The work on xml:id uncovered some inconsistencies
>  in Canonical XML version 1.0 (see xml:id CR,
>  Appendix C, "Impacts on Other Standards"). The
>  Working Group will produce a new version of
>  Canonical XML to address those inconsistencies,
>  as well as others that might be discovered at a
>  later stage.
> Glenn sent some thoughts at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0019
> He introduced the idea of "scoped" (inherited) attributes.
> Henry wants to mention xml:space and xml:lang explicitly
> as the scoped (inherited) attributes.
> We don't need to use the word "scoped" or "inherited", but 
> we do need to say that "the following steps" are for
> xml:space and xml:lang only.
> If we ever do add a new "inherited" attribute to the xml
> namespace, it would not be treated as "inherited" by C14N
> unless we reissue C14N.  (Norm points out an application
> could still treat it as inherited.)
> ACTION to Glenn:  Send out new rewording per our above
> discussion. 

Glenn sent something out at
for a fix to the paragraph talked about inheritance--seems fine to us.

Then Glenn sent out email about a discussion with John Boyer:
where John made the observation that it would be less 
disruptive to the C14N exploiters if we were to release these changes 
as Canonical XML 1.0 Second Edition than to produce a Canonical XML 
1.1 specification. 

In addition, the XML-Signature Syntax and Processing spec http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212/ has explicit
references to http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315 
and http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#WithComments. 
What are our intentions with respect to producing a new version of 
the XML-Signature specification?  If we do not do so, what is the 
effect of producing a revision to Canonical XML? 

We have CONSENSUS that we have been chartered to do a 1.1
and that we should not try to do this as an erratum.

We are not sure how best to do this as a 1.1.  We should try
to elaborate the possible ways of handling this and ask the
C14N community how best to go about this.  For example, if
we create a new namespace for C14N 1.1, what do we say the 
old namespace means?  We'd like to avoid the flak we are
getting for XML 1.1.

We should probably use the existing mailing list
w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org to gather opinions.

ACTION to Glenn:  Post an email on this list explaining
we are doing a 1.1 and asking for how we can minimize

10.  Henry added a "forking QNames" item:

We discussed this, but most members felt that there was
nothing to do--what these folks are doing isn't XML (at
least not XML plus Namespaces).

Norm argues that we should object to the use of the
QName syntax for things that aren't QNames.  He also
objects to the invention of a new mechanism for declaring
things that look like namespaces when they aren't really.

ACTION to Henry:  Feed this back into the ongoing discussion.

ACTION to Norm:  Raise this concern at the TAG level.

> [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/2005Oct/0021
> [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, 2 November 2005 17:13:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:35 UTC