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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 February 22

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:06:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020262B7DC@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
Paul
Ravi on IRC
Glenn  
Norm
Leonid
Richard
Henry
François 
Daniel
John

[8 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
------- 


Absent organizations
--------------------
Lew Shannon


NO telcon next week due to the f2f.


> 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.
> 
> Next week is our f2f at the Technical Plenary in Mandelieu, 
> France.  The XML Core WG is meeting Thursday and Friday, 
> March 2-3.  
> 
> We will NOT have our usual telcon Wednesday, March 1.
> 
> The TP Week overview page is at
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/12/allgroupoverview.html
> 
> Expected:  Paul, Norm, Daniel, Richard, Philippe
> 
> We have reserved Zakim for the two days, usual call-in info:
> Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference code 9652 ("XMLC")
> 
> Draft agenda is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml-f2f-20060302-agenda.htm
> 
> ----------
> 
> We have been asked to review
> "XML Schema 1.1 Part 2:  Datatypes"
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema11-2-20060116/
> 
> John Cowan volunteered and sent his comments to the list at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Feb/0029

DV doesn't think this spec is really about XML Core 
things, so perhaps comments such as John's should be 
more personal comments than XML Core comments.

Henry points out the issue of XML 1.0/1.1 is an 
XML Core issue.

Francois says that the one about the language tags 
(comment 2 in John's email) isn't an XML Core issue 
but is somewhat controversial.  Except it might 
become an XML Core issue if we feel we need to
change the XML spec accordingly.  I18N is also
reviewing this spec and will send in comments
about this.

DV:  Since they are changing the way you compute
years (numbering BCE years), they should use a
different namespace name.

Francois thinks they aren't changing it, but rather
that JohnC is suggesting the change.

Henry believes that the draft does make the change
(Richard agrees), and the Schema WG isn't sure about
changing the namespace name yet.

DV does think they should change the namespace name
so he can tell which semantics to use.

Henry suggests that very few people probably used
negative dates for BCE years, and the pain in changing
the namespace name may override the small incompatibility.

Changing the namespace name of everything would seem
to be overkill.  Henry and John feel that this is
such a minor thing that there shouldn't be any change
to namespace name or local name.

ACTION to Paul:  Send in John's comments to the Schema WG.

------------

DV asks about any comments we might have on the XHTML 1.1 PR.

Norm says they are allowing any of the XHTML attributes
to be namespaced and used anywhere (including on non-XHTML
elements) and have the standard XHTML semantics.  Note
that this creates a global xhtml:id attribute.

Note there was no Last Call or CR for this.

ACTION to Paul:  Raise this issue to the XML CG.

> 
> 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.)  
> 
> Richard made some comments on this at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Feb/0027
> and Norm replied at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Feb/0028
> ending with a question for Francois.

Richard remains concerned that we don't say 
precisely what is a legal XML Resource Identifier,
and he figures he would need such to be able to
use this term in the namespace spec.

Richard decides he's okay with the wording Norm
has for this in the XLink 1.1 spec, and he will
be able to refer to it along with some other wording
in the NS 1.1 spec.

> 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.
> 
> 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
> 005JulSep/
> and an issues document at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/xlink11/lc-status/status-report.html
> 
> Norm put a DoC at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/xlink11/lc-status/doc.html
> 
> 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/

And updated it as of this morning.

> 
> xlink:href requirements 
> -----------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 005JulSep/
> 0008
> Last message at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 006JanMar/
> 0063
> 
> Change "xml string" to "character string".
> 
> The meaning of our definition of href hasn't changed since
> Last Call though the wording has changed.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Take another stab at answering this question.
> 
> error handling 
> ---------------
> Last message is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 006JanMar/
> 0002
> and we don't understand this really.
> 
> We don't talk about reporting errors, we just say
> some elements have xlink semantics and others don't.
> 
> Norm and Richard (mostly) discussed this.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Try to email back again to try to see
> what it is he is getting at.

Norm tried again.

Anne proposed that we say any bad attributes are ignored.

John suggests that it's hard to know what attributes
to ignore when there are two attributes in conflict.

Norm agrees that we don't make any changes here.

CLOSED.

====

event handling of nested links
------------------------------
ACTION to Paul:  Invite Bjoern to the XML Core f2f
for next week to discuss some of these open issues.

> 
> 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]. 
> 
> 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 Feb 22]:  Review the MAYs again and 
> create a marked up version with changes.

Henry produce a version at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml

Norm looked at it and approved it.

ACTION to John, Paul:  Review what Henry did.

> 
> 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.
> 
> Glenn created an editor's draft of C14N 1.1 which is up at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/WD-xml-c14n11

It looks good, but we will take one more look
at the f2f and then request that it be published.

> 
> 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/2006Feb/0023
> [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, 22 February 2006 17:06:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:33 GMT