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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 May 10

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:05:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020343AFF9@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
Paul
Ravi on IRC
Glenn 
Norm
Leonid
Richard
Henry  
François xx:11
Lew  xx:17
John

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

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

Regrets
-------  
Daniel 
Jose Kahan

Absent organizations
--------------------
Daniel Veillard (with regrets)


> 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.
> 
> DV sends regrets for May 17, 24.
> 
> Lew sends regrets for May 17, 24.
> 
> HT sends regrets for May 17.

John Cowan says our defn of IRIs in XLink and soon to
be in XML differs from the defn in 3987. 

Richard says we're not saying that.  We are defining
something new called XML Resource Identifiers that, 
after escaping, are IRIs. 

John Cowan then worried about XML Schema's anyURI defn
which mentioned "internationalized resource identifiers"
(lower case).

ACTION to John:  Review the specs to see if there remain
any problems.

> 
> 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 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:  Send out a new draft by May 5th.

Done, and posted by Henry at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/05/WD-xml-c14n11-20060510.html

We discussed the xml:base wording in 2.4.  Should we refer
to 2396 or 3986?  Should we have a detailed algorithm in
the C14N spec or refer to an RFC as much as possible?

If we want to refer to an RFC normatively, we could still
include a non-normative appendix with the expanded algorithm.

We talked about comparing the algorithm in 3986 section 5.2 
with our desired algorithm and determine the delta with the 
intention of being able to say in C14N 1.1 something like 
"use the algorithm in 3986 with the following differences...."

But then we went on to more discussion.

ACTION to Richard:  Write down the suggested solution per
our telcon discussion and send to the mail list.

> 
> 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 this week's telcon:  Produce 
> PER-ready drafts of XML 1.0 4th Ed and XML 1.1 2nd Ed.

Francois uploaded some new versions.

Issues:

1.  IRs--if we have substantive changes, we should have
    a new IR.

ACTION to Henry:  Check on what we can do here regarding
Implementation Reports for XML 1.x PERs.  Note also Paul's
comments on this at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0010

2.  diff marks--just use color, no links to errata for
    mustification changes.

ACTION to Francois:  Implement the above decision.

3.  For PER we need links to a place where the AC forum
    members can send their comments.

ACTION to Henry:  Set up the necessary WBS and send the
URL to Francois for inclusion in the SOTD.

> 
> 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
> 
> Richard suggested wording for the erratum about 
> more cases of abusing the xml and xmlns prefix at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata#NPE26
> and we had 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.

Done.

Richard requests that someone review the new versions,
still at the same URLs.

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

To Be done next week.

> 
> 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-r
eview.html
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Review section 4.1.1 at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/04/XInclude/REC-xinclude-20060423-r
eview.html
> #IRIs
> and see if it references the XML spec as we intended.
>
> 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.
> 
> When 3023bis becomes a reality, we might have some
> specs that need updating for the reference, but we
> don't expect any major changes.
> 
> Paul sent some comments on 3023bis to the XML CG at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Apr/0026
> 
> Paul and Henry discussed a bit.  We plan to revisit 
> this during this week's telcon.
>
> 
> [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/2006May/0007
> [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, 10 May 2006 17:05:12 GMT

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