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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 Nov 23

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:40:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302016FA3F4@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
November 23, from
          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
          16:00-17:00 UTC
          16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
          17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
          21:30-22:30 in most of India
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.

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:

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

ACTION to JohnC:  Compose some language for all the specs.

The Voice Browser WG (VBWG) asks us about forbidding an 
internal subset when referencing the VoiceXML 2.1 DTD:

3.  XLink update.

The LC WD of XLink 1.1 has been published:

We have comments at

ACTION to Norm:  Reply as feasible and bring issues worth
discussing to the WG via email.

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.

PE 147 is in countdown until our next telcon (which
will be Nov 23).

JohnC did a scan for MUST/SHOULD and reported at

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.

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:

Daniel has updated the Errata document at

Elliotte's results are not
included in our Implementation Report at
as he reports in

ACTION to Richard:  Update the IR with results for ERH's tests
when they are available.

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.

Paul has asked ERH for his results, but has not yet
received a response.

7. xml:id is a Recommendation, published 2005 Sept 9:

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
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.

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 had some discussion last week.

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 Norm:  Raise this concern at the TAG level.

There was more discussion in email after last week's call.

Where do we stand?

[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/2005Nov/0004
[8] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata
[9] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V11-1e-errata
Received on Monday, 21 November 2005 16:37:42 UTC

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