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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 August 23

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:55:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020466DD6F@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 CDAC (on IRC)
 John  xx:24

Guests for the C14N discussion
 Thomas Roessler

[9 organizations (9 with proxies) present out of 11]


Absent organizations
IBM (with regrets)
Lew Shannon 

> 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).


> Leonid sends regrets for August 23 through September 13.
> 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 (updated since last week) is at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/c14n-note.html

Konrad suggested some more changes that Thomas will
incorporate before this weekend.

> Jose convinced Thomas to have a separate note for the
> "how to use XML Signature today" part.
> The latest version (updated since last week) is at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/dsig2006-note.html

Konrad points to a relevant wiki at

> 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

Richard replied at
saying that it looked good to him, but it will be important
to have a test suite testing all the various cases.

Richard thinks the "diff markup" of 3986 is enlightening
and should actually appear in the spec.

Thomas expresses concerns about referencing 3986 instead
of 2396, since dsig references 2396.

ACTION to Thomas and Konrad (and maybe Richard):  Figure out 
whether to reference 2396 or 3986 or whatever.


We plan to have the WG vote to move the above two notes
and C14N 1.1 WD to first working draft at next week's telcon.

> 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.
> 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.

Henry checked, but isn't sure what the answer is.  We wrote
into the CR that the exit criteria (among other things):

* There are at least two interoperable implementations of 
  the specification.

* It has been shown that any valid XLink 1.1 document can 
  be programmatically converted into an equivalent XLink 1.0

* A test collection to enable checking the interoperability of
  recognizing and pre-processing XLinks has been created.

We plan to call all SVG implementations as 1 of the 2 implementations
for point 1.  We need to find another.  Maybe XBRL?

ACTION to Henry:  Research XBRL.

Norm has an answer to point 2.

ACTION to Norm:  Post the answer to point 2 to the WG mailing list.

For point #3, we should collect a few more tests.

ACTION to Norm:  Provide a few more tests for the 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, 
> 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 4th/2nd Editions published 2006 August 16:
>  Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816
>  Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816
> 7. Namespaces in XML 1.0/1.1 2nd Editions published 2006 August 16:
>  Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Second Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816
>  Namespaces in XML 1.1 (Second Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names11-20060816
> ACTION to Richard:  Record Anne's issue/proposed resolution
> in the Namespace PE document.
> 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-review.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

ACTION to Paul:  Send an updated draft PER request.

> 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 XInlude 
> errata that could benefit from a test suite. 
> ACTION: DV to propose new XInclude tests.

Daniel posted email at
explaining some progress.

PEX1, PEX6 and PEX11 could affect conformance and we should
add test cases to the test suite for these situations.  DV's
email outlines such tests.

ACTION to DV:  Add the tests suggested in the email to the test 
suite at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2001/XInclude-Test-Suite/
and updated http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/XInclude/ also.

> 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/0026
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 15:55:35 UTC

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