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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 December 6

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:39:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302058464A0@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
December 6, from
          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
          16:00-17:00 UTC
          16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
          17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
          21:30-22:30 in most of India
on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#.
We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 .

See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents
and other information.  If you have additions to the agenda, please
email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon.

Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and
completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it
at the beginning of the call.


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).


2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.

The QA working group asked Ian Hickson of the Web Application 
Formats WG to request that the XML Core working group review 
the XBL2 specification that is currently in Last Call:

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/xbl2/Overview.html?content-type
=text/html
Editor's copy (more up to date)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060907/
Snapshot for TR page (last call version; outdated)

fwiw, here are a few reviews/notes one might want to
read for some other XML Activity members' thoughts:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0002
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0012

ACTION to Norm:  Review this WD.

---

Issue on attribute canonicalization raised by Norm at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0020
and by Eric Prud'hommeaux at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0019

We figure if this is RDF's way to quote attributes, 
it's fine with us, as it's RDF-specific.

ACTION to Norm:  Reply to Eric with this and see if we've
misunderstood something.


3.  C14N 

Our three C14N documents have been published:

Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0)
     W3C Working Draft 15 September 2006
This version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-C14N-issues-20060915/
Latest version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/C14N-issues/

Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML Environment
     W3C Working Draft 15 September 2006
This version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DSig-usage-20060915/
Latest version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/DSig-usage/

Canonical XML1.1
     W3C Working Draft 15 September 2006
This version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20060915
Latest version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n11

---

The latest C14N 1.1 editors draft is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/WD-xml-c14n11.html

Konrad sent in some editorial comments at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Nov/0005


Glenn has provided an updated draft (dated Nov 27) at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/WD-xml-c14n11.html

We plan to approve C14N 1.1 for LC publication at this week's telcon and

then publish the LC in mid-December in concert with the XML Base PER.

Jose suggested we republish the two WG Notes at the same time.
We forsee no changes to them except some references to new versions
of C14N 1.1 and XML Base.  

ACTION to Jose and Thomas:  Prepare updated drafts of the two Notes.

Paul has pre-announced the upcoming LC for C14N 1.1 at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Nov/0017


4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs.

The latest draft is at
  http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/11/xmlbase-2e
and this has been announced to the W3C and the public, e.g.:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2006OctDec/0061

We will plan to go to PER in mid-December.

Michael Kay at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006OctDec/
0014
suggests this is too big a change for an erratum.

Richard argues this isn't a change, but Michael disagrees.

We aren't sure if this is really an implementation issue
for Michael or just an edge case process question.

ACTION to Norm:  Chat with Michael during XML 2006.

ACTION to Henry:  Schedule a PER call the week of December 11th.

We need to develop a written response to all of Michael's points.

ACTION to Richard:  Draft such a response.


5.  XLink update.

The XLink CR was published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ 

Paul wrote a draft PR request at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0001

Norm posted a DoC at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/xlink11-doc.html

ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC to remove the two non-XLink comments.

ACTION to Norm:  Follow up in email on:
XLink conformance criteria question, Boris Zbarsky 

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.

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.

Also, nowhere do we say that conversion from an XML Resource
Identifier to an IRI must occur as late as possible.
Suggested new wording:

 If required, the IRI reference resulting from converting
 an XML Resource Identifier can be converted to a
 URI reference by following the prescriptions of
 Section 3.1 of [RFC 3987].

 The conversion from an XML Resource Identifiers to an
 IRI must be performed only when absolutely necessary and
 as late as possible in a processing chain.  In particular,
 neither the process of converting a relative XML Resource
 Identifier to an absolute one nor the process of passing
 an XML Resource Identifier to a process or software component
 responsible for dereferencing it should trigger escaping.

ACTION to Norm:  Implement the new wording in XLink 1.1.


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

ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document per last telcon's
decisions.

On PE 157, John sent email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0036
with his suggested response and a question for the WG:

> Should we add specific references to UTF-16BE, UTF-16LE, CESU-8,
> etc. etc. to 4.3.3?  If so, we might as well remove "We consider the
> first case first" from Appendix F; it's more than obvious.

We agreed that, according to the spec, such a character is not a BOM.

Henry suggested we should provide an explanation, but he's not sure
if it should go in the spec or just to the commentor.

We will pick this back up later when John is on a call.


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

Richard has recorded Anne's issue/proposed resolution at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata.html#NPE27


8.  XInclude 1.0 Second Edition has been published:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xinclude-20061115/


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.tx
t
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.

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/2006Nov/0020
Received on Monday, 4 December 2006 15:44:29 GMT

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