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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 August 30

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:04:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302047A7CE9@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>



Attendees
---------
Konrad
Paul
CDAC (on IRC)
Norm
Richard
Henry
François 
Daniel  xx:13
John  xx:19
Lew

Guests for the C14N discussion
------------------------------
Thomas Roessler
Jose

[10 organizations (10 with proxies) present out of 11]

Regrets
-------  
Leonid
Glenn 

Absent organizations
--------------------
IBM (with regrets)


Leonid, DV sends regrets for September 6 and 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.

> Leonid sends regrets for August 30 through September 13.
> 
> 
> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.

John Cowan volunteered to review
> CSS Module: Namespaces
> W3C Working Draft 28 August 2006
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-namespace-20060828/

He pointed out that namespace prefixes in CSS are case
insensitive.  But we decided this isn't a problem.  
Henry asked that we request an explanatory note to
point this out.

It isn't made clear that namespace URIs should never
be normalized or messed with--in fact he believes they 
imply the opposite.  Francois and Richard believe they
mean the right thing, but have it poorly stated.

Francois notes that they do not make a normative 
reference to the Namespace specs, and they should.

They should refer to the latest versions of the
Namespace specs (or just to the undated ones).

ACTION to John:  Draft a response and send it to
the XML Core list for discussion.

> 
> 3.  C14N 
> 
> We have three C14N documents all of which we want to
> approve for initial publication during this week's telcon.
> 
> ---
> 
> The latest version of the C14N WG note documenting 
> the current situation and issues and problems is at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/c14n-note.html
> 

Jose wants to remove section 5.3.

> ---
> 
> The latest version of the separate "how to use XML 
> Signature today" WG note is at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/dsig2006-note.html
> 
> ----
> 

CONSENSUS to publish these two notes as First WD.

ACTION to Konrad, Jose:  Produce a publication ready version
of the C14N note and announce to the WG on the XML Core list.

ACTION to Thomas:   Produce a publication ready version
of the DSIG note and announce to the WG on the XML Core list.

ACTION to Paul:  Send First publication request.

> 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 replied 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
> at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Aug/0032
> 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.
> 
> Richard, Konrad, and I went through this.  The conclusion was that
> consistency between c14n and xml:base is paramount, and more
> critical than consistency between c14n and xml signature in terms 
> of what spec is referenced.
> 
> The proposal is, hence, to leave the normative text and references
> of c14n 1.1 as is for a first public working draft, but to add a
> note in the "status of this document" section that says that the
> section on xml:base is expected to evolve along with the group's
> work on that recommendation.
> 

We want to refer to 3986 eventually when xml:base does,
but we are willing to publish it now as is.

CONSENSUS to publish the C14N 1.1 WD as First WD.

ACTION to Glenn:   Produce a publication ready version of the 
C14N 1.1 WD and announce to the WG on the XML Core list.

ACTION to Paul:  Send First publication request.

> 
> 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.

We need to update xml:base to reference 3986.

We also need to discuss what kind of normalization happens
to xml:base attributes in computing the [baseURI].

We need to make it clear what kind of normalization occurs
and when it should happen.

We have agreed that we do not do escaping of the value
for [baseURI].  We need to make this clear in xml:base.

ACTION to Richard:  Produce a first draft (and diff version)
of XML Base Second Edition.

Konrad reminds us to mention the special values like
xml:base="" and such.

We need to tighten up language about escaping disallowed
characters (e.g., % signs).

> 
> 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 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.
> 
> Henry is looking into updating the XBRL code to be
> an XLink 1.1 implementation.  Status?

Henry did update the XBRL processor to support XLink 1.1,
and he added some more tests to the test suite.

> 
> Paul wrote a draft PR request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0001
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Create an XLink DoC.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Post to the WG mailing list something to
> show that any valid XLink 1.1 document can be programmatically 
> converted into an equivalent XLink 1.0 document.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Provide a few more tests for the test suite.

ACTIONs to Norm continued.

The old version XLink in section 5.5, we talk about values
of href attributes.

In the new version, we talk about IRIs and XML Resource 
Identifiers and other ways of encoding.  So it's unclear
now what to do about spaces in href attributes.  Compare
http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/#link-semantics and the
wording above it in section 5.4.1 at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/#xml-resource-identifier

Norm thinks instead of spaces, we should now say non-URI
characters. 

ACTION to Norm:  Make a suggestion how best to fix this.

> 
> 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 an UPDATED draft PER request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Aug/0039
> 
> DV reports that there are a few changes in the XInlude 
> errata that could benefit from a test suite. 
> PEX1, PEX6 and PEX11 could affect conformance and we should
> add test cases to the test suite for these situations.  DV's
> email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Aug/0033
> 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.

ACTION to DV continued.

We will plan to vote to take XInclude 2nd Ed to PER next week.

> 
> 
> 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/0035
> 
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 16:05:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:34 GMT