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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 Sept 28

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:59:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302DB933A@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
Paul
Ravi
Glenn
Richard 
John  
Philippe
Lew  xx:21
Daniel  xx:08

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

Regrets
-------  
Henry
Norm


Absent organizations
--------------------
Sun (with regrets)
François Yergeau

 
DV gives regrets for next week.

> 
> 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).

Accepted.

> 
> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 
> Impending Last Call revisions for XSLT/XQuery/XPath documents
> 
> Richard checked the data model document and has the 
> following issues:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1295
> 
> I'm still a little unclear about the relationship between XSL/Query
> datatypes and schema datatypes.  The resolution says that "All
> primitive atomic types, such as xs:integer and xs:string, have
> xdt:anyAtomicType as their base type." which is not true in 
> XML Schema.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1303
> 
> They're adding a note to the XPath backwards compatibility appendix
> (appendix to what?) noting the incompatibility when there is a DTD,
> but this still seems like a big change: for example, identity
> transformations will now strip element-content whitespace.  And I
> still don't see why they are not describing it in terms of [element
> content whitespace].
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Accept the others, but question
> there two in the bugzilla data base.

Done.  The Query group looked at these topics at their f2f.

They have no plans to make a change for the first item (schema
datatypes), and we're okay with that.

They are planning to call out the second issue (whitespace)
for special CR comment:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1309

We will continue to track this through CR.

> JohnC looked at the wording about XML 1.1 in the 
> language documents (xpath, xquery):
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Sep/0025
> 
> XQuery, XPath, and Data Model all use the same idea: an implementation
> can use XML 1.0 rules or XML 1.1 rules for whitespace and names.
> XQuery explicitly says that 1.1 implementations may wish to provide a
> 1.0 mode;  I'd like to see this strengthened to SHOULD, to agree with
> the XML 1.1 Recommendation.
> 
> The Functions and Operators draft refers to XML 1.1 support as a
> feature,
> but the datatypes are imported from XML Schema part 2, which does not
> deal with XML 1.1 names or strings.
> 
> ACTION to John:  Add your two comments ASAP into bugzilla:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/

Done.

John says they plan to point to Henry's note on how to
use XML 1.1 with XML Schema 1.0.

---

Glenn reported back on the change to allow the null string
as a value of xml:lang.  The issue is that by doing so, we
are changing people's schemas out from under them, and this
may affect certain touchy implementations that depend on
exact datatypes of certain things.

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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.

Daniel updated
http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata/
to make it an errata document.

ACTION to Paul:  Review the document.

> 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.

ACTION to Richard continued.

> 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 DV continued.

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

ACTION to Richard continued.

> 
> 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?
> 
> ACTION to Glenn:  Look for the source and start on a draft.

Glenn agreed to be editor of C14N V1.1.

Glenn got a copy of the spec, but just in HTML.

The editor was John Boyer--we should ask him for the source.

ACTION to Glenn:  Email John Boyer about where to find
the authoritative source.

We need to check the comments list to see if there are
other potential errata we should consider:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/

ACTION to Glenn:  Email to the XML Core WG list the
existing paragraph and the suggested new wording.


10.  Henry forwarded and xml-dev question about links,
xinclude, and xml:base:
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200509/msg00249.html

DV had a response about using the xpointer xpointer scheme.

Richard suggests that the #item1 link should point into
the current document which is the includ*ing* document,
so things should work as the user wants if properly implemented.

Richard things the answer is that the link does point into
the current document, but the current document is the
result of having expanded the xinclude, so the #item1 link
should refer to item with xml:id="item1" in the resulting
document.  So while it's true that:

  "...the link points to
   http://example.com/common/policy.xml#item1..."

the "#item1" link is still a same document link (per either
RFC 2396 or 3986) so it does still link to the item with 
xml:id="item1".

ACTION to Richard:  Reply to this on xml-dev.
 

> 
> [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/0029
> [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, 28 September 2005 16:02:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:33 GMT