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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 Sept 14

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:41:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302AD9C2D@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


[7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 10]


Absent organizations
 W3C (with regrets)
 John Cowan
 Lew Shannon

Norm gives regrets for Sept 21 and 28.

> 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).


Welcome to Ravi and his colleagues from Centre for 
Development of Advanced Computing.

> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.

Impending Last Call revisions for XSLT/XQuery/XPath documents

Richard had made comments on the data model document
which Norm tried to implement, as far as he remembers.

ACTION to Richard:  Check the data model document to
see if it looks like our comments have been satisfied.

Norm says it would be good to look at the wording about
XML 1.1 in the language documents (xpath, xquery).

ACTION to Norm:  Send email to JohnC (cc-ing the list)
about looking into this wording.


We have the following deliverables left in our charter:

* XLink 1.1 Rec
* NS1.1 PER
* C14N V1.1 Rec

We should probably also produce an XInclude PER.

It would be nice to have all this in the final
stages by next February's Technical Plenary.
(And if that is the case, we can all celebrate
in Cannes and then disband ourselves.)

> 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.
> XLink 1.1: XML Base confusion
> -----------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 005JulSep/
> 0009
> XML Base references RFC 2396 and XLink references RFC 3987
> (the IRI one) which references RFC 3986 (2396-bis) for
> absolutization and such, but nothing has changed between
> 2396 and 3986 wrt absolutization.  So we don't see the problem.
> ACTION to Norm:  Take this back to the commentor.
> XLink 1.1: Error handling
> -------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 005JulSep/
> 0013
> We say what the conformance criteria are but not what
> to do when an error is encountered.  For example, what
> should we do if someone specifies an invalid value for
> one of the xlink:* attributes.
> Francois points out that this hasn't changed since XLink 1.0.
> ACTION to Norm:  Craft some words along the lines of error
> handling being implementation dependent.
> XLink 1.1: XLink 1.1 in XML 1.1
> -------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 005JulSep/
> 0012
> Norm suggests we just say that XLink works for both XML 1.0
> and XML 1.1, and the names should just match the version
> being used.
> XLink 1.1: Integration with CSS
> -------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 005JulSep/
> 0018
> How does XLink interact with CSS's :link selector?
> Francois suggests that we add a note that says "languages
> such as CSS should see XLink links as links."
> ACTION to Norm:  Respond to the commenter and to the CSS WG.

ACTIONs to Norm continued--expected due date October 12th.

> 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 to Francois continued.

> 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.

This is listed in our charter as something we should
be doing in 2005.

Richard will look into this.

> 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
> We need to turn the PE document into an errata document.
> ACTION to DV:  Produce a draft Errata document, using
> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata as a starting 
> point/template.

ACTION to DV continued; estimated due date of Sept 21.

> 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.

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.

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

> 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.

We should start drafting a V1.1.

We need to change the URI to identify the c14n scheme,
we need to fix the bit about inheritance of xml:*
attributes.  That should be it.

Do we say that xml:lang and xml:space get inherited
and the rest don't, or do we say that C14N should
not fool with xml:* attributes at all?

> [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/2005Sep/0008
> [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, 14 September 2005 15:42:23 UTC

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