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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 March 29

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:34:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30202CA350F@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
Paul
Ravi on IRC
Glenn  off at xx:25
Norm
Richard
Phillipe
François 
John
Lew

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

[8 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------  
 Daniel
 Leonid
 Henry


Absent organizations
--------------------
Daniel Veillard with regrets


Richard gives regrets for the next 2 weeks.

Lew gives regrets for next week.

> 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.
> 
> 2a.  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 produced an initial draft new charter at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/03/xml-core-wg-charter-200607.html

Philippe sent some comments that Paul will incorporate.

We should add a paragraph to the effect that the WG handles 
core XML architectural issues and as such may deal from
time to time with several other specifications beyond those 
specifically listed in the scope.

ACTION to Paul:  Produce a new version.

> 
> 2b.  Norm asked the WG to review RDF/A Primer 1.0 [11] with 
> particular attention to Section 4.4 [12].
> 
> JohnC replied at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0061

ACTION to Paul:  Send John's reply to the XML CG.

> 
> 2c.  TAG's Disposition of Names in an XML Namespace:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/02/namespaceState/TR/2006/WD-n
> amespaceState-20060223/
> 
> François had comments:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0059
> 
> JohnC had comments:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0060

NOTE:  The above comments were really about the Namespaces
spec itself and should therefore be taken as PE against NS 1.0
(and 1.1).

No one had problems with the TAG's draft finding.

ACTION to Paul:  Tell the TAG that no one had problems with 
the TAG's draft finding.

> 
> 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.
> 
> Q: If you want to join two relative URIs is it the same 
> as the merge path function? Or how should it work?
> 
> Konrad drafted an email explaining our requirements and 
> asking our question:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0058
> 
> Given no negative responses to date:
> 
> ACTION to Konrad (today):  Post that
> email to public-ietf-w3c@w3.org and uri-ig@w3.org.

Konrad posted something at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0063
and Jose made some comments.  

ACTION to Konrad (today):  Post that email to public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
and 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.  Norm
> has generated a test suite.  We should be in the process
> of getting a Director's decision and publishing it.

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


> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.

Chris gave a status update (such as it is) at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0070


> 
> [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/0051
> [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
> [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-rdfa-primer-20060310/ 
> [12] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-rdfa-primer-20060310/#id69192 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 16:35:22 GMT

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