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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 February 1

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:39:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302022BE0C0@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>



We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
February 1, 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.

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/2005JulSep/
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

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.

Re: XLink 1.1: Charmod conformance
----------------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0048
Björn says XLink 1.1 should NFC-normalize IRIs.

Richard replied at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0070
Bjoern replied at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0075
and Richard re-replied at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0089
and the thread ends there (as of the writing of this agenda).

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.

Paul sent email rejecting the comments:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0072
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0073
but the commentors continue to remain unsatisfied (without
really answering the question of whether they want to
record an official objection).

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

Paul sent email rejecting the comment:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0074
but the commentor continues to remain unsatisfied (without
really answering the question of whether he wants to
record an official objection).

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 email thread.

Paul sent email about our adding the note:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0076
but the commentor continues to remain unsatisfied (without
really answering the question of whether he wants to
record an official objection).

"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.

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/2006JanMar/0081
Henry re-replied at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0083
and the thread ends there (as of the writing of this agenda).

5.4 "URI reference" unclear 
---------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0064
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/2006JanMar/0077
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.

Animation
---------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/0019
Bjoern wants us to talk about how XLink interacts
with SMIL.

Paul sent email rejecting the comment:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0084
but the commentor continues to remain unsatisfied (without
really answering the question of whether he wants to
record an official objection).  He did however write a
long and scathing reply at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0088

"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/

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.


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 Monday, 30 January 2006 16:39:23 GMT

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