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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 May 24

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:12:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302036C9DBB@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
Paul
Ravi on IRC
Norm
Richard
Henry
John

Guests for the C14N discussion
------------------------------
Konrad Lanz  xx:26
Jose Kahan

[5 organizations (5 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------  
François 
Daniel 
Lew
Glenn
Leonid
Thomas Roessler

Absent organizations
--------------------
Daniel Veillard (with regrets)
Lew Shannon (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.

> 
> 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.

John decided now that there are no problems here.
Issue closed.

> 
> 3.  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.
> 
> The latest editor's draft of C14N 1.1 is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/05/WD-xml-c14n11-20060510.html
> 
> We discussed the xml:base wording in 2.4.  Richard provided a 
> suggested solution at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0014
> 
> Konrad posted to the list some examples and new wording
> based on Glenn's draft and Richard's wording at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0024
> and there was some follow up email.

Jose sent followup email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0041

> We still need to come to closure on this wording.

The issues remain only when the document doesn't have
a base URI.  And the key thing for C14N is just to get
the same result all the time.  So there seem to be three
possibilities when the document has no base URI:

1.  delete all xml:base attributes
2.  just do simple concatenation with xml:base attributes
3.  do concatenation with some normalization (e.g., handling
    .. and maybe . segments)

Paul argues for choice 2--"simple concatenation" but
no normalization.

Jose worries that another process might see a non-normalized
xml:base attribute and try to normalize it and then you
won't get the same C14N results.

Richard then asks what happens when a fragment without
absolute base URIs gets embedded in another document.

Konrad prefers to do .. normalization to minimize the
number of different canonicalizations for what should
be equivalent documents.

ACTION to Richard:  Review the new suggested wording
in Konrad's email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0024

ACTION to Jose and Konrad:  Develop suggested wording
for the remaining edge cases.

Richard points out that the XML Base spec isn't clear
what should happen with xml:base="", and we might need
to issue an erratum to XML Base for this.

ACTION to Richard:  Review XML Base and make a suggestion
as to what we should do to that spec regarding xml:base="".

> 
> 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 almost-ready editor's drafts
> of both XML 1.0 4th Ed and XML 1.1 2nd Ed at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/05/xml10-4e/PER-xml-2006mmdd-review.html 
> and
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/05/xml11-2e/PER-xml11-2006mmdd-review.html
> There are also non-diff XHTML versions (remove "-review") and 
> XML versions, with all ancillary files in place to render them. 
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Set up the necessary WBS and send the
> URL to Francois for inclusion in the SOTD.

ACTION to Henry continued.

> ACTION to Francois:  Edit the existing Implementation Reports
> (e.g., so that they don't just refer to 3rd Ed) and edit the
> latest PER drafts to point to these (existing) IRs.
> 
> ACTION to Paul (during PER):  Ask implementors to confirm that
> their implementations remain conformant given the changes
> we are making to the latest editions.
> 
> Plan is to publish the first week of June.
> 
> Paul sent draft PER requests at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0028
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0030

ACTION to Henry:  Review and comment on the PER requests.

ACTION to Henry:  Review the situation with our upcoming 
five PER requests and propose a schedule for any necessary
steps (telcons, pubdates, etc.).  FWIW, Paul will be unavailable
June 5-7 and 14-23, but his presence shouldn't be a sin qua non
for anything here.

> 
> 7. Namespaces in XML.
> 
> Richard has PER-ready editor's drafts of both 1.0 and 1.1
> new editions:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-10-2e.html
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-11-2e.html
> 
> There are also diff versions:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-10-2e-diff.html
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-11-2e-diff.html
> 
> Richard requests that someone review the new versions.
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Apply the "more cases of abusing the 
> xml and xmlns prefix" PE to the 2 Errata documents.

ACTION to Richard continued.

> Paul sent draft PER requests at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0032
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0031
> 
> 
> 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-review.html
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Review section 4.1.1 at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/04/XInclude/REC-xinclude-20060423-review.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.
> 
> ACTION to Paul:  Start checking status and such and draft 
> a PER request.

ACTION to Paul 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.  
> 
> 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.
> 
> Paul sent some comments on 3023bis to the XML CG at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Apr/0026
> 
> Chris planned to open it up for public review April 26th, 
> but given remaining open issues (such as those raised by
> Paul), has held off doing this. 

Henry met with Chris yesterday, and Chris is going to
take the XML CG input outlined at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Apr/0019
and produce another draft.

Chris and Henry also are backing "xpointer scheme" down 
from "registered" to "pending" in the registry.

We will now await a new draft from Chris.

> 
> When 3023bis becomes a reality, we might have some
> specs that need updating for the reference, but we
> don't expect any major changes.
> 
> 
> [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/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, 24 May 2006 16:12:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:34 GMT