- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:50:50 -0400
- To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87bqt53qxx.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> was heard to say:
| Minutes
| ======
Roll call:
Present:
Norm, Thomas (muted), Jose (muted), PGrosso, klanz2, fyergeau, Leonid, Ht,
Glenn [xx:12-], DV [xx:17-]
| 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 telcon: 21 June, 14 Jun cancelled.
Norm, Paul give regrets for 21 June; Henry to chair.
| 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
| http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note
|
| ACTION to Thomas: Produce a first editors draft of the
| C14N note by Monday, June 5th.
Continued, ETA 21 June.
| The latest editor's draft of C14N 1.1 is at
| http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/05/WD-xml-c14n11-20060510.html
|
| We discussed the xml:base wording in 2.4. Richard provided a
| suggested solution at:
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0014
|
| Konrad posted to the list some examples and new wording
| based on Glenn's draft and Richard's wording at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0024
|
| Jose sent followup email at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0041
|
| 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:
| <one>
| <two xml:base="http://example.org">
| <three xml:base="">
| <four xml:base="x/y"/>
| </three>
| </two>
| </one>
|
| 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
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0024
|
| 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.
Richard proposes that xml:base="" should be a no-op. This avoids some
issues associated with same document references as discussed with Roy
Fielding.
What about xml:base="#foo"?
On the same grounds, it shouldn't be treated as a same-document
reference. It's no different from any other case where you put a
fragid on xml:base. In 3986 it's clear what the consequences are: if
you derive a base URI from a URI ref, then you're supposed to discard
the fragid before you treat it as a base URI.
So "#foo" is also effectively a no-op.
This removes the impossible case in fixup for C14N from happening.
Note that "." and "./" are also effectively no-ops, but not for the
same reasons.
Konrad asks about:
<div xml:base="#ignored-fagement">
<div xml:base="subdir/file.ext">
<div xml:base="">
<a href="">Is this a link to subdir/file.ext#fragment
or a link to https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz/index.html ?</a>
This is a reference to the current document
<a href="#">Is this a link to subdir/file.ext#
or a link to https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz/index.html# ?</a>
This is a reference to the current document
<a href="#fragment2">Is this a link to subdir/file.ext#fragment2
or a link to https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz/index.html#fragment2?
</a>
This is a reference to fragment2 in the current document
<a href="file.ext">Is this a link to subdir/file.ext#fragment
or a link to https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz/index.html ?</a>
This is a reference to "file.ext"
<a href="file.ext#">Is this a link to subdir/file.ext#
or a link to https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz/index.html# ?</a>
This is a reference to "file.ext"
<a href="file.ext#fragment2">Is this a link to subdir/file.ext#fragment2
or a link to https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz/index.html#fragment2 ?
</a>
This is an error if #fragment2 doesn't exist in file.ext.
</div>
</div>
</div>
What do we have to say in C14N 1.1 after we make the erratum to xml:base.
Richard proposes that C14N avoid stating the entire algorithm, but instead
refer to 3986 and note the changes, as proposed in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0012.html
If the result of ".. normalization" results in an empty string, it can
either be left or discarded.
Konrad proposes that C14N always discard any xml:base=""
CONSENSUS: We will refer to 3986 and describe only the differences.
ACTOIN: Konrad to revise the text and post to the list.
| 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.
Next item.
|
| 5. XLink update.
|
| XLink is now in CR--published at
| http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/
|
| Norm sent some email about his test suite at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0066
Next item.
| 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
| http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/05/xml10-4e/PER-xml-2006mmdd-review.htm
| l
| and
| http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/05/xml11-2e/PER-xml11-2006mmdd-review.h
| tml
| 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
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0070
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0071
|
| 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
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0002
|
| 7. Namespaces in XML.
|
| Richard has updated PER-ready editor's drafts of both 1.0 and 1.1
| new editions:
|
| http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-10-2e.html
| http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-11-2e.html
|
| There are also diff versions:
|
| http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-10-2e-diff.ht
| ml
| http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-11-2e-diff.ht
| ml
|
| Paul sent updated draft PER requests at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0072
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0073
We expect a PER call on Friday. Actions deemed overtaken by events.
Richard has summarized how the individual tests might be run:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0004.html
| 8. 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
|
| Daniel has drafted XInclude 2nd Edition with all
| the errata (including the IRI one) applied. Result is
| http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/04/XInclude/REC-xinclude-20060423.html
| with a diff version at
| http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/04/XInclude/REC-xinclude-20060423-review.html
|
| Still need to handle errata document for the new edition
| and other front matter.
|
| Paul sent a draft PER request at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0044
|
| ACTION to Paul: Check status and such.
Henry to discuss on 21 June; attempt to do PER last week of June.
Proposed: We shall publish XInclude 2e and send it for PER during the
last week of June.
Accepted.
DV reports that there are a few changes in the XInlude errata that
could benefit from a test suite.
ACTION: DV to propose new XInclude tests.
| 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
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2005Jul/thread.html#15
| 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
| http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-02.tx
| t
| 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
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Apr/0026
|
| Henry says Chris is going to take the XML CG input outlined at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Apr/0019
| 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
| [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
Any other business?
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 15:52:47 UTC