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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 November 22

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:44:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302056AFFD4@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 Ravi (on IRC)

Guests for the C14N discussion
Jose on IRC

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


Absent organizations
Sun (with regrets)
Lew Shannon (with regrets)
François Yergeau (with regrets)
John Cowan

> 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.
> The QA working group asked Ian Hickson of the Web Application 
> Formats WG to request that the XML Core working group review 
> the XBL2 specification that is currently in Last Call:
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/xbl2/Overview.html?content-type=text/html
> Editor's copy (more up to date)
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060907/
> Snapshot for TR page (last call version; outdated)
> fwiw, here are a few reviews/notes one might want to
> read for some other XML Activity members' thoughts:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0002
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0012
> ACTION to Norm:  Review this WD.

ACTION to Norm continued.

> ---
> Issue on attribute canonicalization raised by Norm at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0020
> and by Eric Prud'hommeaux at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0019
> We figure if this is RDF's way to quote attributes, 
> it's fine with us, as it's RDF-specific.
> ACTION to Norm:  Reply to Eric with this and see if we've
> misunderstood something.

ACTION to Norm continued.

> 3.  C14N 
> Our three C14N documents have been published:
> Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0)
>      W3C Working Draft 15 September 2006
> This version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-C14N-issues-20060915/
> Latest version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/C14N-issues/
> Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML Environment
>      W3C Working Draft 15 September 2006
> This version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DSig-usage-20060915/
> Latest version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/DSig-usage/
> Canonical XML1.1
>      W3C Working Draft 15 September 2006
> This version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20060915
> Latest version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n11
> ---
> The latest C14N 1.1 editors draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/WD-xml-c14n11.html
> Konrad sent in some editorial comments at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Nov/0005
> ACTION to Glenn:  Make the editorial changes unless there are 
> problems.

ACTION to Glenn continued.

> We plan to approve C14N 1.1 for LC publication at our next telcon and 
> then publish the LC in mid-December in concert with the XML Base PER.
> Jose suggested we republish the two WG Notes at the same time.
> We forsee no changes to them except some references to new versions
> of C14N 1.1 and XML Base.  
> ACTION to Jose and Thomas:  Prepare updated drafts of the two Notes.

ACTION to Jose and Thomas continued.

> ACTION to Paul:  Pre-announce the upcoming LC for C14N 1.1.


> 4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs.
> The latest draft is at
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/11/xmlbase-2e
> and this has been announced to the W3C and the public, e.g.:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2006OctDec/0061
> We will plan to go to PER in mid-December.

No comments on xml-dev.

Michael Kay at
suggests this is too big a change for an erratum.

Richard argues this isn't a change, but Michael disagrees.

We aren't sure if this is really an implementation issue
for Michael or just an edge case process question.

We might ask Norm to chat with Michael during XML 2006.

Other parts of Michael's comment:

 When the spec says that the xml:base attribute "may be used",
 it should make it clear that the attribute has no special status
 as far as DTD or XML Schema validity checking is concerned: it
 may be used only if permitted by the DTD or schema.

Agreed, we can add some wording.

 The spec doesn't say which relative URIs in a document are
 affected by xml:base.

We need to think about this.

 The spec says nothing about leading and trailing spaces
 in the xml:base attribute value.

Richard suggests we say that no space normalization is done,
but it might be helpful to find out what implementations
actually do.

 The spec says nothing useful about the situation where
 the base URI of the document entity is unknown. (should
 be OK if xml:base is absolute)

We can explicitly say that the result is application dependent.

 (Comment on XLink v1.1 5.4.1) the spec says that to convert
 an XML resource identifier to an IRI Reference, the character
 #0 must be escaped. This implies that the character #0 can
 exist in unescaped form; but it can't.

Add this issue to our list of changes to the wording in XLink.
It might consist of a note explaining things.

 It would be useful if we could all converge on the term
 "percent-encoding" as used in the RFCs, rather than "escaping"
 which is a much less specific term.

We will consider this to see how it might work.

ACTION to Henry:  Schedule a PER call the week of December 11th.

> 5.  XLink update.
> The XLink CR was published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ 
> Paul wrote a draft PR request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0001
> Norm posted a DoC at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/xlink11-doc.html
> ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC to remove the two non-XLink comments.
> ACTION to Norm:  Follow up in email on:
> XLink conformance criteria question, Boris Zbarsky 
> ACTION to Norm:  Post to the WG mailing list something to
> show that any valid XLink 1.1 document can be programmatically 
> converted into an equivalent XLink 1.0 document.
> ACTION to Norm:  Provide a few more tests for the test suite.
> The old version XLink in section 5.5, we talk about values
> of href attributes.
> In the new version, we talk about IRIs and XML Resource 
> Identifiers and other ways of encoding.  So it's unclear
> now what to do about spaces in href attributes.  Compare
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/#link-semantics and the
> wording above it in section 5.4.1 at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/#xml-resource-identifier
> Norm thinks instead of spaces, we should now say non-URI
> characters. 
> ACTION to Norm:  Make a suggestion how best to fix this.
> Also, nowhere do we say that conversion from an XML Resource
> Identifier to an IRI must occur as late as possible.
> Suggested new wording:
>  If required, the IRI reference resulting from converting
>  an XML Resource Identifier can be converted to a
>  URI reference by following the prescriptions of
>  Section 3.1 of [RFC 3987].
>  The conversion from an XML Resource Identifiers to an
>  IRI must be performed only when absolutely necessary and
>  as late as possible in a processing chain.  In particular,
>  neither the process of converting a relative XML Resource
>  Identifier to an absolute one nor the process of passing
>  an XML Resource Identifier to a process or software component
>  responsible for dereferencing it should trigger escaping.
> ACTION to Norm:  Implement the new wording in XLink 1.1.

ACTIONs to Norm continued.

> 6. XML 1.0/1.1 4th/2nd Editions published 2006 August 16:
>  Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816
>  Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816
> ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document per last telcon's
> decisions.

ACTION to Francois continued.

> On PE 157, John sent email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0036
> with his suggested response and a question for the WG:
> > Should we add specific references to UTF-16BE, UTF-16LE, CESU-8,
> > etc. etc. to 4.3.3?  If so, we might as well remove "We consider the
> > first case first" from Appendix F; it's more than obvious.
> We agreed that, according to the spec, such a character is not a BOM.
> Henry suggested we should provide an explanation, but he's not sure
> if it should go in the spec or just to the commentor.
> We will pick this back up later when John is on a call.

Discussion continued to another call.

> 7. Namespaces in XML 1.0/1.1 2nd Editions published 2006 August 16:
>  Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Second Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816
>  Namespaces in XML 1.1 (Second Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names11-20060816
> Richard has recorded Anne's issue/proposed resolution at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata.html#NPE27
> 8.  XInclude 1.0 Second Edition has been published:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xinclude-20061115/
> 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.
> 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/2006Nov/0006
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2006 16:45:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:37 UTC