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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 May 31

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 12:13:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020381EAF5@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Ravi on IRC
Daniel  xx:14

Guests for the C14N discussion
Konrad Lanz  
Jose Kahan

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

Thomas Roessler

Absent organizations
Lew Shannon

> 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).


> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 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
> Jose sent followup email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0041
> 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)

Though last week we were leaning toward attempting some
normalization, upon review this week, we were leaning
toward not attempting normalization.

Richard came up with an example where normalization
isn't feasible:
    <two xml:base="http://example.org">
      <three xml:base="">
        <four xml:base="x/y"/>

Suppose we cut out <three>, there is no value that can be 
put on <four> to get the same result.

In Richard's case, even concatenation won't give the
right result.

But all these problems only exist when the base URI 
of the document is not known.

> 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 Richard continued.

> 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="".

There has been an ongoing email thread at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0049 ff

Richard: If the value of the xml:base is interpreted as a URI
reference, then xml:base="" brings the base back to the
current document.  And in section 3, XML Base says that the 
value of xml:base is interpreted as a URI reference.

So xml:base="#foo" and xml:base="" both reset the base URI 
to be that of the current document.

> 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 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.

Looks good except CR -> PER in several places.

> 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.

Henry suggests we do XML/NS 1.0/1.1 in one telcon on Friday
June 9th.  We should shoot for a publication date of June 14
and a PER end date of July 31.

ACTION to Henry:  Set the time for the telcon.

The WG has CONSENSUS to request PER on all four of XML/NS 1.0/1.1.

ACTION to Paul:  Send out new draft PER requests for these four.

ACTION to Francois, Richard:  Update the drafts to reflect
pubdate of 14 June 2006.  Richard should update status
sections (see those in Francois' drafts).

We discussed how to handle the implementation reports for
the new editions.  Henry suggests just leaving the IRs
as they stand.

Henry suggests some wording for the status sections
indicating that the older IRs are still valid.

Richard suggests he could write some tests for the
latest errata, so then we could have new IR documents.

ACTION to Richard:  Add some new tests and announce to
the XML Core list.

> 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.
> 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
> Still need to handle errata document for the new edition
> and other front matter.
> Paul sent a draft PER request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0044
> ACTION to Paul:  Check status and such.
> 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
> Henry says 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/0042
> [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, 31 May 2006 16:14:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:36 UTC