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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 June 28

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:13:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30203D47A07@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 Ravi on IRC
 John  xx:17

Guests for the C14N discussion

[8 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 11]

Thomas Roessler
Jose Kahan

Absent organizations
Lew Shannon

> 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.

Welcome to Konrad as an official XML Core WG member.

We have decided to CANCEL telcons until July 26th.

> 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
> 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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0045

Konrad will continue as co-editor of this note.

> ----
> 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. 
> 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:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0012
> 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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0032

Richard looked at Konrad's latest wording.  He is
dubious about repeating a complete algorithm here;
he'd rather reference another algorithm (from 3987)
and indicate the differences.

ACTION to Konrad:  Make clearer what steps in the
algorithm in the appendix are the same as 3987 and
which ones are different.

ACTION to Richard:  Send a response to Konrad's mail
pointing out his latest suggestions.

> 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
> 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
> 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].

It should have been "...to request PR".

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

Henry explains that Norm created some code (to check xlinks
and xml:base) as well as test documents.  Henry put up the
documents, but he needs to work with W3M to put up the code.
Otherwise, we could just put up the output.

ACTION to Henry:  Continue to put up the XLink test suite
including the code if feasible.

ACTION to Paul:  Write a draft PR request.

We think there is nothing else to do before PR except
creating an up to date Disposition of Comments.

ACTION to Norm:  Create an XLink DoC.

> 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.

We need to get AC reps to review.

> PLH:  There an issue with references to 2396 vrs 3986.

Francois agrees with making these changes by making 
them errata and then reflecting the changes in the
the Recommendations.

Henry has no problem with making these changes.

ACTION to Francois:  Process these as errata and
fold into the Rec version of the specs.

> 7. Namespaces in XML.
> NS 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.

ACTION to Richard:  Make this change.

> 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. 

Both fixed before the PER was published.

> The date for XML 1.1 will also need an update (maybe at REC time).

We will refer to the (dated) 2nd and 4th editions 
of XML 1.1 and XML 1.0 respectively.

> There have been several editorial issues raised as
> summarized by Richard at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0044

CONSENSUS with Richard's suggestion to make the editorial
changes between PER and Rec and process Anne's comment
as an erratum.

> 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:  Prepare a Disposition of Comments.

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

ACTION to DV continued.

> 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.txt
> 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://www.w3.org/2006/06/21-xmlcore-minutes.html
> [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, 28 June 2006 16:15:33 UTC

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