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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 February 1

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:07:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302022BE71B@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Ravi on IRC

[4 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 10]

Daniel (proxy to the chair)
Franšois (proxy to the chair)

Absent organizations
Univ of Edinburgh
Daniel Veillard (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
John Cowan
Lew Shannon
Franšois Yergeau (with regrets, proxy to the chair)

> 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.

Our latest plan for XLink is to shoot for a CR call
on February 16 or 17 and then publish on the 20th.

We still have some comments that need final responses.
We hope to have that done during the next week and to
have all DoCs and drafts updated (by Norm who is out
until the 13th) by the 15th when we will vote to go
to CR.

> We are planning a f2f at the Technical Plenary 27 Feb-3 March 2006
> in Cannes, France.  The XML Core WG is currently scheduled to
> meet Thursday and Friday, March 2-3 of that week.
> TP2006 registration is open until 17 February 2006:
>     http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TP2006/
> The TP Week overview page is at
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/12/allgroupoverview.html
> Expected:  Paul, Norm, Daniel, Richard, Philippe
> 2b.  IRI wording in xml:base et al.
> Chris Lilley asks about xml:base and IRI:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0004
> Norm thinks we should change the bib ref from 2986
> to 3986.  Section 3.1 should say any xml:base should
> first have spaces escaped to %20 and then have the
> IRI changed to a URI per 3987.
> We should have uniform language for XLink 1.1, XLink 1.0,
> xml:base, xinclude, XML 1.0, and XML 1.1 (as errata for 
> all but XLink 1.1).
> There is some question as to whether we should bother to 
> make an erratum for XLink 1.0, but we did not resolve this.
> We basically want to put the text that is in XLink 1.1 into
> the other specs.
> We talked about pulling the necessary wording into a normative
> appendix in XML 1.0 3rd Ed and XML 1.1 (as errata in both cases).
> Then we could reference that appendix in xml:base, XInclude, etc.
> We also said we could just make it section 4.2.3.  As long as it
> is referenceable by other specs.
> Francois sent updated suggestions at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jan/0016
> (ignore the "System identifiers (and other XML strings..." 
> sentence at the beginning.)
> This will go into XLink 1.1 as a separate section.  
> Then we can do it as an erratum for XML 1.0 and 1.1.
> Then we would produce XML 1.0 4th Ed and 1.1 2nd Ed.
> XInclude and xml:base (and probably NS 1.1) we do 
> errata pointing them to the new editions of XML or 
> if we're in a bigger hurry, errata quoting the whole 
> text.  (We don't want to point the lower specs to XLink.)  
> ACTION to Richard:  Look at this wrt putting into NS 1.1.
> We do have a suggestion from Murata-san at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2005Dec/0000
> that we process such an erratum against NS 1.0.
> We're not sure what we think about this yet.
> 3.  XLink update.

Philippe agreed that we should stick to our resolve
that we don't have to change things that are outside
the scope of our Requirements Document.

> The LC WD of XLink 1.1 has been published:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/
> We have comments at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> and a DoC at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/xlink11/lc-status/status-report.html

When Norm returns, we need to have an updated status
report clearly showing all threads closed.  We also
need a DoC showing all threads that were closed without
acceptance by the commentor.

> Paul sent a draft CR request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jan/0019
> Norm has sent out the latest CR-ready draft at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/
> Thread 19--Schema issues 
> ------------------------
> Comments on the schema for xlink.
> Henry thought about this and decided the commentor is wrong
> and sent a reply.
> However, the commentor didn't agree.
> ACTION to Henry:  Reply one more time on this.

ACTION to Henry continued.

We still need to close this thread. *****

> Re: XLink 1.1: Charmod conformance
> ----------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> Bj÷rn says XLink 1.1 should NFC-normalize IRIs.
> Richard replied at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> Bjoern replied at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> and Richard re-replied at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> and the thread ends there (as of the writing of this agenda).

We still need to close this thread. *****

> "URI reference" "checking"
> --------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> Norm will strike the "because it's impractical" wording
> and replace it with a note that says checking isn't required.
> Henry replied to Bjoern's message:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0071
> Bjoern was unsatisfied at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> Henry re-replied at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> and the thread ends there (as of the writing of this agenda).

Henry's penultimate email asked if this should generate
an official objection (which question was never answered),
so we can handle this thread the same as the others in
this category (which I assume will be to generate an
official objection).

Henry, do you agree that this thread should now
be considered closed? 

> XLink 1.1: Xlink vs "legacy" linking 
> ------------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> Anne and Bjoern still think XLink should say something
> about how XLink interacts with other linking elements.
> CONSENSUS for Norm to add a SHOULD paragraph that other
> specs using XLink should explain how other linking interacts.

Looking at the latest draft, I see just before 1.1 Origin and Goals
the paragraph:

 For languages, such as [CSS], that wish to identify
 hypertext links in a document, we suggest that any
 local element from which XLink specifies that traversal
 is possible, and which the application treats as if it
 specified actuate="onRequest", be treated as a hyperlink
 source anchor.

I assume that is the "should" paragraph in question,
so this issue is closed.

> 5.4 "URI reference" unclear 
> ---------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> The commentors want us to use the newer (3986) term
> "Relative Reference" in place of "relative URI".
> Paul declined at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> but the commentor and several others disagreed.
> Paul is now thinking we could use the new term with 
> a note in XLink 1.1 equating it to the older term.

No one on the call had strong feelings, but we seemed 
to be leaning toward doing what Paul suggests above.

ACTION to Paul:  Respond that we will make some use of
the newer term.

ACTION to Norm:  Update the draft by changing:
  If the value of the href attribute is a relative URI,
  or results in a relative URI after escaping
  If the value of the href attribute is a relative reference
  (as defined in [RFC 3986], also known as "relative URI" in 
  earlier RFCs),
  or results in a relative reference after escaping

The above actions will close this thread.******

> "XML document" undefined
> ------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> We now think the issue is whether a linkbase can be
> anything that can be converted into an infoset or
> does it have to be an XML document.
> ACTION to Norm:  Look at XInclude and make a suggestion.

We just say "xml documents" in XInclude.  Since this 
wording is in XLink 1.0, we will leave it as is.

We need to close this thread.******

> 4. 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]. 
> ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document including
> issues raised on public-xml-testsuite@w3.org.
> JohnC did a scan for MUST/SHOULD and reported at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0015
> John thought most of the mays were not official mays.
> This is now PE 148.
> ACTION to Henry [due Jan 31]:  Review the MAYs again and 
> create a marked up version with changes.
> 5. 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.
> Ongoing ACTION to Richard:  Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed.
> We note that the IRI spec is now finished-RFC 3987-so 
> we have to issue an erratum for NS 1.1 for this.  We
> discussed some details of this under the XLink discussion:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#xlink
> Briefly, 3987 does have some wording (the "MAY" paragraph) 
> about what used to be called unwise characters.  For the 
> NS 1.1 erratum, the MAY paragraph doesn't apply since 
> namespace names cannot have the unwise characters.  (The 
> MAY paragraph will be needed for XML 1.* system identifiers.)
> ACTION to Richard:  Process an erratum to NS 1.1 to
> refer to RFC 3987: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt
> There is a namespace PE:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2005Dec/0001
> Richard's suggested resolutions are at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2005Dec/0002
> CONSENSUS with Richard's suggested resolutions.
> These would be errata to both NS 1.0 and 1.1.
> ACTION to Richard:  Update the NS PE doc and Errata documents.
> 6. 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 
> 7. xml:id is a Recommendation, published 2005 Sept 9:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-xml-id-20050909/
> Robin Berjon asked a question about transition
> strategies that we should discuss--see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jan/0049
> 8.  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.
> 9.  C14N is listed in our charter:
>  Canonical XML version 1.1
>  The work on xml:id uncovered some inconsistencies
>  in Canonical XML version 1.0 (see xml:id CR,
>  Appendix C, "Impacts on Other Standards"). The
>  Working Group will produce a new version of
>  Canonical XML to address those inconsistencies,
>  as well as others that might be discovered at a
>  later stage.
> We have CONSENSUS that we have been chartered to do a 1.1
> and that we should not try to do this as an erratum.
> We are not sure how best to do this as a 1.1.  We should try
> to elaborate the possible ways of handling this and ask the
> C14N community how best to go about this.  For example, if
> we create a new namespace for C14N 1.1, what do we say the 
> old namespace means?  We'd like to avoid the flak we are
> getting for XML 1.1.
> We should probably use the existing mailing list
> w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org to gather opinions.
> Glenn posted an email to w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org explaining
> we are doing a 1.1 and asking for how we can minimize disruption:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Dec/0001
> Glenn summarized that discussion at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jan/0012
> The email includes a discussion on whether an erratum to C14N 1.0
> or a C14N 1.1 would be less disruptive.  There was no consensus
> among the discussants of this thread.
> The XML Core WG has consensus to stick with a C14N 1.1 as chartered.
> Henry points out we could produce a 1.1 and use the old identifier.
> But Norm doesn't think we can do that.
> We seem to be ready to produce a first WD of C14N 1.1.
> ACTION to Glenn:  Produce an actual first editor's draft of C14N 1.1.

In progress.  Glenn plans to generate a draft of just
changes (as did John Cowan for the first draft of XML 1.1).

He expects to have something ready by week.

> 10.  Henry added a "forking QNames" item:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Nov/0000
> We had some discussion last week.
> Norm argues that we should object to the use of the
> QName syntax for things that aren't QNames.  He also
> objects to the invention of a new mechanism for declaring
> things that look like namespaces when they aren't really.
> Norm is still trying to understand whether there is an
> issue yet, and he needs to wait until they publish a
> document to be sure.
> ACTION to Norm:  Raise this concern at the TAG level
> at the appropriate time.
> 11.  Henry raises that RFC 3023 is out of date and the draft
> replacement has expired.  Henry says there is a new draft
> expected soon (Murata-san will send something to Chris to
> publish soon).  
> Chris is still hoping that he and Murata will be able
> to publish a new ID for 3023bis soon.
> [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/2006Jan/0048
> [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
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 17:08:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:35 UTC