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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 May 3

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 11:39:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302032B079A@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
 Paul
 Ravi on IRC
 Glenn 
 Norm
 Leonid
 Richard
 Henry  
 François 
 Daniel
 Lew  xx:21

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

[9 organizations (9 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------  


Absent organizations
--------------------
John Cowan


DV sends regrets for May 10, 17, 24.

Lew sends regrets for May 17, 24.

HT sends regrets for May 17.


> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.

Paul reviewed and thought it was fine.

Konrad is not sure it's good for the default behavior
to be the new C14N.  

Thomas says there are two issues:

1.  whatever behavior a future version of XML Sig may have

2.  what kind of behavior is safe in the current environment

He wants to leave open the first issue, but for the second,
he's saying that the safest is to put in a URI specifying
the new C14N.

Thomas expects to have a first editors draft Monday, June 5th.

ACTION to Thomas:  Produce a first editors draft of the 
C14N note by Monday, June 5th.

> 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.

Glenn made a pass over the weekend, but is still cleaning
up wording.

ACTION to Glenn:  Send out a new draft by May 5th.

> 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.

ACTION to Francois for next telcon:  Produce PER-ready 
drafts of XML 1.0 4th Ed and XML 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.

Norm reviewed and thought there were fine.

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

Done as the wording at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata#NPE26

CONSENSUS on the new wording which is now in countdown
until May 17.

ACTION to Richard:  Apply this erratum to both 1.0 and 1.1
new editions.

ACTION to Richard (after countdown):  Apply this PE to 
the 2 Errata documents.

> 
> 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.

Paul and Norm reviewed and thought it was fine.

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

ACTION to Francois continued.  See
http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/04/XInclude/REC-xinclude-20060423-review.html#IRIs

Still need to handle errata document for the new edition
and other front matter.

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

No updated status.

> 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.

Paul and Henry discussed a bit.  The only conclusion is
that we need to look at the wording of 3023bis to ensure
it says what we want. 

We will revisit next week.

> 
> [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 Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:39:39 GMT

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