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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 March 22

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:57:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30202BD87E9@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>



Attendees
---------
 Paul
 Ravi on IRC
 Glenn  xx:13
 Norm
 Richard
 Henry
 Daniel

Guests for the C14N discussion
------------------------------
 Konrad Lanz  
 Jose Kahan
 Thomas Roessler

[6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------  
François 
Leonid


Absent organizations
--------------------
François Yergeau with regrets
John Cowan
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).

Accepted

> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 
> We discussed the future of the XML Core WG at our f2f at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml-f2f-20060302-minutes.h
> tm#futures
> 
> The WG had CONSENSUS with the decision taken at the f2f
> which was to write our new (post June) charter to finish 
> up what we are doing and maintaining the existing specs 
> without adding anything new.  We would plan to have telcons 
> reduced to once a month.  
> 
> Paul informed the XML CG of this decision:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Mar/0001
> 
> Ongoing ACTION to Paul, Norm, Henry:  Implement this 
> decision in the upcoming new WG charter.

ACTION to Paul:  Draft a new charter.

> 
> 3.  C14N 
> 
> Glenn created an editor's draft of C14N 1.1 which is up at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/WD-xml-c14n11
> 
> We had some discussion at the f2f--see
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml-f2f-20060302-minutes.htm#c14n
> 
> At the f2f, we decided to produce a W3C WG Note documenting 
> the current situation and issues and problems.
> 
> Thomas posted his f2f notes at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0026
> 
> ACTION to Thomas and John: Generate a draft of the Note.
> 
> Konrad was on the call last week and raised the issue 
> of how to handle xml:base for C14N.  He felt that
> one can handle xml:base appropriately for C14N.
> 
> Henry suggests we can use the defn of the baseURI
> property to define how to handle xml:base in C14N.
> 
> We discussed details of how we might be able to
> handle xml:base in C14N, pointing out that the
> algorithm for handling xml:base cannot be concatenation.
> 
> Henry has outlined one possible approach to getting
> it right at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0005
> 
> Henry mailed a summary of the current status
> and suggested resolution:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0033
> 
> Konrad replied in email--the thread remains open.

Q:  If you want to join two relative URIs is it the same
as the merge path function?  Or how should it work?

Henry suggests we connect with the IETF via our liaison call.

ACTION to Henry:  Find out where this question should go.

Thomas suggests emailing the Q to public-ietf-w3c@w3.org .

ACTION to Konrad:  Send an email to the above list explaining
our requirements and asking our question (wait until Monday).

Norm suggests we also cc uri-ig@w3.org .  

> 
> 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.
> 
> We had a CR telcon March 21.  We will go to CR.  We need
> to generate a test suite.

Norm is working on a test suite tool.  (Norm and Richard
had a discussion of some details.)

Henry has developed the updated status with new exit criterion.

ACTION to Henry:  Send to Norm the updates for the Status.

ACTION to Norm:  Update the CR draft and generate the CR copy.

ACTION to Paul:  Send in the pub request.

> 
> 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]. 
> 
> Re. PE 148, Henry posted a version for 1.1 at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml 
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Merge the mustifications into XML 1.0.
> 
> We resolved some other PE at the f2f.
> 
> We decided to resolve PE140 by saying that we have 
> fiddled this wording enough and we aren't going to 
> fiddle it any more for fear of making it worse.
> 
> We decided to resolve PE142 by saying that we have 
> fiddled this wording enough and we aren't going to 
> fiddle it any more for fear of making it worse.
> 
> ACTION to François: Update the PE document accordingly
> for PE 140 and 142.
> 
> We note that the resolution to PE141 has already made 
> a wording change in this area, but Richard pointed out  
> that the wording should be:
> 
>   In a document with an external subset or parameter
>   entity references...
> 
> (no "external").
> 
> That is, we made a mistake in the earlier resolution
> of PE141.  We should update the resolution of PE141
> to read as shown above.
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE and Errata documents.
> 
> With respect to PE143, after production [60], we should 
> add a reference to the "No External Entity References" WFC.
> 
> ACTION to François: Update the Errata and PE document 
> accordingly for PE143.
> 
> 
> 7. 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.
> 
> ACTION to Richard: Draft the 2nd edition of NS 1.0 
> per the above plan (perhaps by creating a single XML 
> source document for 1.0 and 1.1 using some conditionals).
> 
> ACTION to Richard: Draft a NS 1.1 2nd Edition including 
> this IRI work and the outstanding NS 1.1 errata which, to 
> date, includes only the issue about preventing abuses of xmlns.
> 
> Richard made a start and sent email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0043

He will make a diff between 1.1 and 1.0 2nd Ed.

We will have an appendix in 1.0 explaining the diffs 
between 1.0 1st Ed and 1.0 2nd Ed.  (It will be the
appendix from 1.1 minus the 1.1-specific changes.)

> 
> 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 
> 
> ACTION to Daniel: Update the PE about IRIs for XInclude.
> 
> ACTION to Daniel: Draft XInclude 2nd Edition with all 
> the errata (including the IRI one) applied.

ACTION to Daniel 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.  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.


11.  possible xml:id issue posted at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2006Mar/0000 ff

Richard said the spec says what we want.  It is an id,
though not valid.  This would be the same as with things
declared as IDs in DTDs.

The test suite does not check that a warning is printed as
required, but that doesn't mean this test case is asserting
that this document is correct.

ACTION to Richard:  Follow up on the xml-id list explaining
the situation with the test suite.

> 
> [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/2006Mar/0023
> [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, 22 March 2006 16:57:37 GMT

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