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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 June 7

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 08:50:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302038B19E4@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
June 7, from
          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
          15:00-16:00 UTC
          16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
          17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
          20:30-21:30 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.

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.

3.  C14N 

At the f2f, we decided to produce a W3C WG Note documenting 
the current situation and issues and problems.

Thomas wrote an outline of this note at

ACTION to Thomas:  Produce a first editors draft of the 
C14N note by Monday, June 5th.

The latest editor's draft of C14N 1.1 is at

We discussed the xml:base wording in 2.4.  Richard provided a 
suggested solution at:

Konrad posted to the list some examples and new wording
based on Glenn's draft and Richard's wording at

Jose sent followup email at

The issues remain only when the document doesn't have
a base URI.  And the key thing for C14N is just to get
the same result all the time.  So there seem to be three
possibilities when the document has no base URI:

1.  delete all xml:base attributes
2.  just do simple concatenation with xml:base attributes
3.  do concatenation with some normalization (e.g., handling
    .. and maybe . segments)

Though previously we were leaning toward attempting some
normalization, upon review last week, we were leaning
toward not attempting normalization.

Richard came up with an example where normalization
isn't feasible:
    <two xml:base="http://example.org">
      <three xml:base="">
        <four xml:base="x/y"/>

Suppose we cut out <three>, there is no value that can be 
put on <four> to get the same result.

In Richard's case, even concatenation won't give the
right result.

But all these problems only exist when the base URI 
of the document is not known.

ACTION to Richard:  Review the wording in Konrad's email at

Richard points out that the XML Base spec isn't clear
what should happen with xml:base="", and we might need
to issue an erratum to XML Base for this.

ACTION to Richard:  Review XML Base and make a suggestion
as to what we should do to that spec regarding xml:base="".

There has been an ongoing email thread at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0049 ff

Richard: If the value of the xml:base is interpreted as a URI
reference, then xml:base="" brings the base back to the
current document.  And in section 3, XML Base says that the 
value of xml:base is interpreted as a URI reference.

So xml:base="#foo" and xml:base="" both reset the base URI 
to be that of the current document.

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

At the f2f, we had CONSENSUS to change the 
xml:base spec to make it clear we allow IRIs as the 
value of xml:base. We also want to allow IRIs in the 
infoset [baseURI] information item.

One paragraph in the Infoset says the baseURI may
have unescaped characters, but elsewhere it says
the baseURI follows XML Base which points to RFC 2396.
If we change XML Base, we shouldn't have to change
the Infoset spec much.

5.  XLink update.

XLink is now in CR--published at

Norm sent some email about his test suite at

6. 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]. 

Francois has developed almost-ready editor's drafts
of both XML 1.0 4th Ed and XML 1.1 2nd Ed at
There are also non-diff XHTML versions (remove "-review") and 
XML versions, with all ancillary files in place to render them. 

ACTION to Francois:  Edit the existing Implementation Reports
(e.g., so that they don't just refer to 3rd Ed) and edit the
latest PER drafts to point to these (existing) IRs.

ACTION to Paul (during PER):  Ask implementors to confirm that
their implementations remain conformant given the changes
we are making to the latest editions.

Henry suggests we do XML/NS 1.0/1.1 in one telcon on Friday
June 9th.  We should shoot for a publication date of June 14
and a PER end date of July 31.

ACTION to Henry:  Set the time for the telcon.

Paul sent updated draft PER requests at

ACTION to Francois, Richard:  Update the drafts to reflect
pubdate of 14 June 2006.  Richard should update status
sections (see those in Francois' drafts).

Richard wrote some tests for the latest errata, announced at

7. Namespaces in XML.

Richard has updated PER-ready editor's drafts of both 1.0 and 1.1
new editions:


There are also diff versions:


Paul sent updated draft PER requests at

8. Xinclude Rec was published 2004 December 30 at:

Our XInclude potential errata document is at:

Daniel has updated the Errata document at

Daniel has drafted XInclude 2nd Edition with all 
the errata (including the IRI one) applied. Result is 
with a diff version at

Still need to handle errata document for the new edition
and other front matter.

Paul sent a draft PER request at

ACTION to Paul:  Check status and such.

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
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
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

Henry says Chris is going to take the XML CG input outlined at
and produce another draft.

Chris and Henry also are backing "xpointer scheme" down 
from "registered" to "pending" in the registry.

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/2006May/0068
[8] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata
[9] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V11-1e-errata
Received on Monday, 5 June 2006 12:51:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:36 UTC