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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 January 25

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:08:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30202178353@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>



Attendees
---------
 Paul
 Ravi, CDAC (on IRC) 
 Glenn
 Norm
 Leonid
 Henry
 Richard
 Daniel (on IRC)

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

Regrets
------- 
Daniel (proxy to the chair)

Absent organizations
--------------------
John Cowan
Lew Shannon
Franšois Yergeau

> 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).

Accepted.

> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 a DoC at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/xlink11/lc-status/status-report.html
> 
> Paul sent a draft CR request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jan/0019
> 
> Thread 19--Schema issues 
> ------------------------
> Comments on the schema for xlink.
> 
> ACTION to Henry [due Jan 25]:  Think about and reply to this one.

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.

> We have taken care of all other issues, and we expect to 
> vote to take XLink 1.1 to CR during this week's telcon.

We have quite a bit of pushback from commentors, so many
threads remain open, so we have to stall on going to CR.

> 
> Norm has sent out the latest CR-ready draft at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Try to schedule an LC-to-CR transition
> call for Jan 27th (or 26th).  Norm prefers Friday afternoon
> due to his travel schedule.

Cancel this action, since we have too many open issues.

Re: XLink 1.1: Charmod conformance
----------------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0048

Bj÷rn says XLink 1.1 should NFC-normalize IRIs.

Richard disagrees.  XML shouldn't do normalization, rather
the input should be normalized, and XML 1.1 processors should
complain if the input is not normalized.  Hence, XLink shouldn't
do any normalization.

ACTION to Richard:  Reply to the above message on the comments list.

XLink 1.1: Xlink vs "legacy" linking 
------------------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0050

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.

The WG has consensus not to accept Anne's comment at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0051
beyond the para we'll add.

event handling of nested links 
------------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0058

Bjoern wants us to talk about DOM event bindings.

We have already refused to do so.

The WG has consensus not to accept Bjoern's comment at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0058

Security Considerations 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0055
Bjoern wants a security section.

WG CONSENSUS to decline his suggestion once again.

ACTION to Paul:  Reply indicating the WG decision ending 
with "do you wish for us to record your feelings on this
matter as an official objection when we go to CR?"

XML Base confusion 
------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0056

We will add the Note suggested by Henry in the above.

ACTION to Paul:  Reply indicating the WG decision ending 
with "do you wish for us to record your feelings on this
matter as an official objection when we go to CR?"

"URI reference" "checking"
--------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0060

Norm will strike the "because it's impractical" wording
and replace it with a note that says checking isn't required.

The WG has CONSENSUS that we will not require URI checking.

ACTION to Henry:  Reply to Bjoern's message above, ending 
with "do you wish for us to record your feelings on this
matter as an official objection when we go to CR?"

5.4 "URI reference" unclear 
---------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0064

The WG has CONSENSUS to stay with the term "relative URI".

"XML document" undefined
------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0067

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.

> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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/0015
> [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, 25 January 2006 17:09:29 GMT

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