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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 May 3

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:06:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302032AFBBB@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>



We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
May 3, 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.


Agenda
======
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).

Lew gives regrets.


2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.


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 wrote an outline of this note at
http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note

ACTION to Paul, Glenn:  Read Thomas' outline and give comments.

After a discussion of how we might be able to
handle xml:base in C14N, Glenn made a pass at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Apr/att-0009/
WD-xml-c14n11-20060409.html

We decided to use "inheritable" instead of "heritable". 
Dump "joint (in)heritable" as a concept and just talk 
about xml:base fixup.

ACTION to Glenn (by this week's telcon):  Make another 
pass at a draft.

Konrad asked about what needs to happen with digsig.

We believe the point of this issue is that the DigSig spec
may still need a change to work properly even after we have
come out with C14N 1.1.

Thomas believes it is a problem with XML Sig spec, but one
that can be worked around without too many problems and
potentially a non-normative erratum.


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


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 an almost-ready editor's draft
of both XML 1.0 4th Ed and XML 1.1 2nd Ed.

Francois still needs to double check that it has all
the errata and then there's the status section and
new pubrules.  And then we should have an XML 1.0 4th Ed.

Similarly with 1.1 2nd Ed.


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.

Richard sent his progress to date as described at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Apr/0025

The erratum about more cases of abusing the xml and xmlns
prefix has not yet been published on the Errata page and
folded into the spec.

ACTION to Norm, Lew (and DV):  Review Richard's drafts.

ACTION to Richard:  Suggest wording for the erratum about 
more cases of abusing the xml and xmlns prefix.


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 added PEX17 about IRIs for XInclude.
http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/proposed-xinclude-errata#PEX17
He also augmented the errata document:
http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata/#PEX17

Daniel has drafted XInclude 2nd Edition with all 
the errata (including the IRI one) applied.  Details:

Daniel created a new subdirectory in CVS space, and worked
from the initial XInclude XML version. 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

  Notes on preparation of the Second Edition:
    - Worked from http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata/
    - Updated the DTD to reference 2.10 and changed default
      embedded stylesheet
    - Added (Second Edition) to header
    - Fixed Previous versions to point of first edition, removed
      old previous
    - added author
    - added XHTML diff altloc
  Left TODO:
    - check that the IPR link is still valid
    - update the XInclude errata link to a new location, check
      the Status in general
    - make sure the section in 4.1.1 is really what was intended
      by PEX17

ACTION to Paul:  Review and send comments.

ACTION to Francois:  Review section 4.1.1 and see if it
references the XML spec as we intended.


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.

Chris plans to open it up for public review April 26th.

When 3023bis becomes a reality, we might have some
specs that need updating for the reference, but we
don't expect any major changes.

FWIW, Paul sent some comments on 3023bis to the XML CG at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Apr/0026
Feel free to comment on these on the xml-core mailing list.


[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/2006Apr/0026
[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 Monday, 1 May 2006 15:06:43 GMT

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