- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:46:35 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Paul Richard Henry François Daniel xx:30 Norm John xx:25 Guests for the C14N discussion ------------------------------ Thomas Roessler Jose Kahan [7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 11] Regrets ------- Konrad Glenn Leonid Absent organizations -------------------- A-SIT (with regrets) CDAC IBM (with regrets) Lew Shannon Glenn sends regrets August 23. Jose sends regrets for August 23. Leonid sends regrets for August 23 through September 13. > 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. > > > 3. C14N > > At the f2f, we decided to produce a W3C WG Note documenting > the current situation and issues and problems. > > The latest version of this note is at > http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/c14n-note.html Richard's review: There is an error in figure 7: it has two xml:base attributes! Section 3 gives an example where two elements inherit the same xml:id value, but it should also point out that it would be wrong even if there was only one element - the xml:id attribute would be on the wrong element. The second example in 5.2 is wrong. To give the result shown, the input would have to have something like <b xml:base="test/"> (note the slash). Jose agrees and will reflect them in the Note. ACTION to Jose to edit the note accordingly. > Jose convinced Thomas to have a separate note for the > "how to use XML Signature today" part. > > Initial draft: > http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/dsig2006-note > ACTION to Jose: Reference this "how to use XML Signature today" note from the "big" C14N note. ACTION to Thomas: From this "how to use XML Signature today" note, reference the "big" C14N note. Henry asked if we should use "must/should" in Notes since Notes aren't normative. Thomas suggests we keep that wording for our first publication of this Note. CONSENSUS to keep the RFC 2119 wording for our first publication of this Note. > ---- > > The latest editor's draft of C14N 1.1 is at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/05/WD-xml-c14n11-20060510.html > > Richard sent some related email at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0056 > > ACTION to Richard: Reply to Konrad's email, esp > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0022 > as amended by > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0023 ACTION to Richard continued. > > 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. We need to think about incorporation of 3986 and 3987. Richard kindly volunteered to be the editor of XML Base 2nd Edition. > > 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 > > Henry explains that Norm created some code (to check xlinks > and xml:base) as well as test documents. Henry put up the > documents, but he needs to work with W3M to put up the code. > Otherwise, we could just put up the output. > > ACTION to Henry: Continue to put up the XLink test suite > including the code if feasible. Henry has put up Norm's test suite and code, referenced at http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/03/xlink11-tests Norm's tool itself at http://www.w3.org/2006/08/showxlinks/showxlinks is member only. ACTION to Henry: Check on Director's decision to go to CR to see if the above is sufficient for the going-to-PR test suite. > Paul wrote a draft PR request at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0001 > > We think there is nothing else to do before PR except > creating an up to date Disposition of Comments. > > ACTION to Norm: Create an XLink DoC. ACTION to Norm continued. > > Re: Boris' comment as discussed at our last telcon, Henry thinks > we decided not to do anything, but he's not sure, so we need to > wait to hear what Norm thinks. Henry things Norm took an action > to contact Boris, but we need Norm to confirm. We had decided that Boris is incorrect and that no change is needed in this area. ACTION to Norm: Reply to Boris explaining why his analysis is incorrect. > > 6. XML 1.0/1.1. > > XML 1.0/1.1 PERs were published on 2006 June 14 with a > PER end date of July 12. > > Francois has produced Rec-ready versions of the specs at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/08/xml10-4e/Overview.html and > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/08/xml11-2e/Overview.html > > > 7. Namespaces in XML. > > NS 1.0/1.1 PERs were published on 2006 June 14 with a > PER end date of July 12. > > Richard has produced Rec-ready versions of the specs at: > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-10-2e.html > and > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-11-2e.html > > ACTION to Richard: Record Anne's issue/proposed resolution > in the Namespace PE document. ACTION to Richard continued. > > 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 drafted XInclude 2nd Edition with all > the errata (including the IRI one) applied. 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-r > eview.html > > Still need to handle errata document for the new edition > and other front matter. > > Paul sent a draft PER request at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0044 > > The current plan is to publish XInclude 2e and send it for > PER during the last week of June [*** needs revision ***]. > > DV reports that there are a few changes in the XInclude > errata that could benefit from a test suite. > > ACTION: DV to propose new XInclude tests. ACTION to DV continued. > > 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. > > Paul sent some comments on 3023bis to the XML CG at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Apr/0026 > > Henry says Chris is going to take the XML CG input outlined at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Apr/0019 > and produce another draft. > > Chris and Henry also are backing "xpointer scheme" down > from "registered" to "pending" in the registry. > > We will now await a new draft from Chris. > > 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/2006Aug/0008 >
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2006 15:47:04 UTC