W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > April 2006

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 April 26

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:45:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30203200E42@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Ravi on IRC
Henry  off at xx:16, proxy to the chair

Guests for the C14N discussion
Jose Kahan
Thomas Roessler

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


Absent organizations
John Cowan

Lew gives regrets for next week.

> 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.
> Henry has updated the XML Namespace RDDL document at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace
> [Item closed.]
> 3.  C14N 
> Glenn created an editor's draft of C14N 1.1 which is up at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/WD-xml-c14n11
> We had some discussion at the f2f--see
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml-f2f-20060302-minutes.htm#c14n
> At the f2f, we decided to produce a W3C WG Note documenting 
> the current situation and issues and problems.
> Thomas posted his f2f notes at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0026
> ACTION to Thomas:  Generate a draft of the Note.

Thomas wrote an outline of this note at

ACTION to Paul, Glenn:  Read Thomas' outline and give comments.

> After a discussion of how we might be able to
> handle xml:base in C14N, Glenn made a pass at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Apr/att-0009/WD-xml-c14n11-20060409.html
> Jose made some comments at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Apr/0011

Use "inheritable" instead of "heritable". Dump "joint (in)heritable"
as a concept and just talk about xml:base fixup.

ACTION to Glenn (by next telcon):  Make another pass at a draft.

> Konrad asked about what needs to happen with digsig.
> ACTION to Konrad:  Write up the new wrinkle with 4.3.1 in digsig
> where something is only applied to the signed info and references 
> would need to have an explicit change to something. [the scribe
> didn't get the details, but Konrad will send email with details].

We believe the point of this issue is that the DigSig spec
may still need a change to work properly even after we have
come out with C14N 1.1.

Thomas believes it is a problem with XML Sig spec, but one
that can be worked around without too many problems and
potentially a non-normative erratum.

> 4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs.
> At the f2f, we had CONSENSUS to change the 
> xml:base spec to make it clear we allow IRIs as the 
> value of xml:base. We also want to allow IRIs in the 
> infoset [baseURI] information item.
> One paragraph in the Infoset says the baseURI may
> have unescaped characters, but elsewhere it says
> the baseURI follows XML Base which points to RFC 2396.
> If we change XML Base, we shouldn't have to change
> the Infoset spec much.
> 5.  XLink update.
> XLink is now in CR--published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ 
> Norm sent some email about his test suite at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0066
> 6. 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]. 
> Re. PE 148, Henry posted a version for 1.1 at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml 
> ACTION to Francois:  Merge the mustifications into XML 1.0.


Francois still needs to double check that it has all
the errata and then there's the status section and
new pubrules.  And then we should have a 4th Ed.

Similarly with 1.1 2nd Ed.

> We resolved some other PE at the f2f.
> We decided to resolve PE140 by saying that we have 
> fiddled this wording enough and we aren't going to 
> fiddle it any more for fear of making it worse.
> We decided to resolve PE142 by saying that we have 
> fiddled this wording enough and we aren't going to 
> fiddle it any more for fear of making it worse.
> ACTION to François: Update the PE document accordingly
> for PE 140 and 142.


> We note that the resolution to PE141 has already made 
> a wording change in this area, but Richard pointed out  
> that the wording should be:
>   In a document with an external subset or parameter
>   entity references...
> (no "external").
> That is, we made a mistake in the earlier resolution
> of PE141.  We should update the resolution of PE141
> to read as shown above.
> ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE and Errata documents.

Done, PE149, published as E13 to 1.0 and E21 to 1.1.

> With respect to PE143, after production [60], we should 
> add a reference to the "No External Entity References" WFC.
> ACTION to François: Update the Errata and PE document 
> accordingly for PE143.

Done, E12 and E20.

> 7. 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.
> ACTION to Richard: Draft the 2nd edition of NS 1.0 
> per the above plan (perhaps by creating a single XML 
> source document for 1.0 and 1.1 using some conditionals).
> ACTION to Richard: Draft a NS 1.1 2nd Edition including 
> this IRI work and the outstanding NS 1.1 errata which, to 
> date, includes only the issue about preventing abuses of xmlns.
> Richard made a start and sent email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0043
> He will make a diff between 1.1 and 1.0 2nd Ed. 
> We will have an appendix in 1.0 explaining the diffs 
> between 1.0 1st Ed and 1.0 2nd Ed. (It will be the 
> appendix from 1.1 minus the 1.1-specific changes.)

Richard sent an update as described at

The erratum about more cases of abusing the xml and xmlns
prefix has not yet been published on the Errata page and
folded into the spec.

ACTION to Norm, Lew (and DV):  Review Richard's drafts.

ACTION to Richard:  Suggest wording for the erratum about 
more cases of abusing the xml and xmlns prefix.

> 8. 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 
> Daniel has added PEX17 about IRIs for XInclude.
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/proposed-xinclude-errata#PEX17
> He also augmented the errata document:
> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata/#PEX17
> Daniel has drafted XInclude 2nd Edition with all 
> the errata (including the IRI one) applied.  Details:
> Daniel created a new subdirectory in CVS space, and worked
> from the initial XInclude XML version. Result is 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/04/XInclude/REC-xinclude-20060423.html
> with a diff version at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/04/XInclude/REC-xinclude-20060423-review.html
>   Notes on preparation of the Second Edition:
>     - Worked from http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata/
>     - Updated the DTD to reference 2.10 and changed default
>       embedded stylesheet
>     - Added (Second Edition) to header
>     - Fixed Previous versions to point of first edition, removed
>       old previous
>     - added author
>     - added XHTML diff altloc
>   Left TODO:
>     - check that the IPR link is still valid
>     - update the XInclude errata link to a new location, check
>       the Status in general
>     - make sure the section in 4.1.1 is really what was intended
>       by PEX17

John Cowan sent some minor comments at
and DV has already reflected that suggestion in the draft.

ACTION to Paul:  Review and send comments.

ACTION to Francois:  Review section 4.1.1 and see if it
references the XML spec as we intended.

> 9.  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.
> 10.  Henry raises that RFC 3023 is out of date and the draft
> replacement has expired.  
> Chris has gotten the source and made the changes.
> There is a draft at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-02.txt
> that can be reviewed now with comments sent to the XML Core
> mailing list and/or Chris Lilley.

Francois took a quick look and didn't see anything off hand.

All Norm found were editorial things.

> Chris plans to open it up for public review April 26th.

Status of this unknown at this moment.

> When 3023bis becomes a reality, we might have some
> specs that need updating for the reference, but we
> don't expect any major changes.
> [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/2006Apr/0017
> [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
> [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-rdfa-primer-20060310/ 
> [12] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-rdfa-primer-20060310/#id69192 
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 15:45:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:36 UTC