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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 June 28

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:29:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30203CB262D@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
June 28, 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.

TLR regrets until August 2nd.
Jose regrets until July 26th. 
Richard regrets for 5 and 12 July.

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

Due to various schedules, this would now not likely
happen until an August timeframe, and Thomas questioned 
whether we still wanted to do this at


The latest editor's draft of C14N 1.1 is at

We discussed the xml:base wording in 2.4. 

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, our latest consensus is to avoid normalization
since there are ambiguous edge cases.

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.

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.

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:

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. 

Konrad sent his latest proposed wording at

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

HST: The situation is not clear enough wrt the test suite 
to allow us to request the.  [truncated sentence as in last
week's minutes].

ACTION to HST:  Move Norm's material into the test suite page.

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]. 

XML 1.0/1.1 PERs were published on 2006 June 14 with a 
PER end date of July 12.

PLH:  There an issue with references to 2396 vrs 3986.
Also, the date on the IRI spec in XML Namespaces 1.1 needs 
to be updated s/October 26, 2003/January 2005/. And the URI 
for RFC 3987 is http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt. 
The date for XML 1.1 will also need an update (maybe at REC time).

7. Namespaces in XML.

NS 1.0/1.1 PERs were published on 2006 June 14 with a 
PER end date of July 12.

There have been several editorial issues raised as
summarized by Richard at

When referring to the XML spec, should we refer to
dated versions or not?

ACTION to Richard:  Prepare new editors' copies of the two 
specs with the editorial changes required by the comments 
other than Anne's.

ACTION to Richard:  Record Anne's issue/proposed resolution
in the Namespace PE document.

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

The current plan is to publish XInclude 2e and send it for 
PER during the last week of June.

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
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://www.w3.org/2006/06/21-xmlcore-minutes.html
[8] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata
[9] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V11-1e-errata
Received on Monday, 26 June 2006 21:33:46 UTC

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