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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 October 25

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:01:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302051AC3A1@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
 Paul
 Ravi, CDAC (on IRC)
 Glenn  
 Leonid
 Norm
 Richard 
 Henry  off at xx:26, back at xx:52
 François 
 John 
 Daniel xx:15

Guests for the C14N discussion
------------------------------
 Jose   

[9 organizations (9 with proxies) present out of 11]

Regrets
------- 
Thomas
Lew 
Konrad 

Absent organizations
--------------------
A-SIT (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.
> 
> 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 Snapshot for TR page (last call version; outdated)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.


> ---
> 
> We officially have a new charter until June 2008 at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/06/XML/core.html

ACTION to Paul:  Update our group page with this URL.

> 
> 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://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/att-0032/WD-xml-c14n11.html
and hopefully soon at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/WD-xml-c14n11.html

ACTION to Glenn:  Check the comments list and let us know of any
comments we should address.

ACTION to Richard:  Review the latest C14N 1.1 esp App A.

> 
> 
> 4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs.
> 
> The latest draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/
> 
> Konrad reviewed Richard's latest draft and made some comments at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0024
> 

Richard addressed (or disagreed) with Konrad's email,
as reflected in the latest draft.

[A detail about the diff spec and meta elements between
Richard and Norm.]

> Richard thinks we are about ready to go, but he thinks 
> we might want to publish this as a WD before going to PER.
> 
> Henry checked into our options and suggests we publish a 
> public Editor's Draft, linked from the errata page as a 
> sort of omnibus draft erratum, with a SoTD saying something 
> along the lines of:
> 
>  This is a public Editor's Draft, published to encourage
>  review of the proposed restructuring of this document. 
>  Since the changes are in the nature of corrections for
>  errata, after public review and possible further
>  modifications in light of comments received, the
>  group expects to request publication as a PER.

We seem to be ready to make a public draft.

ACTION to Richard:  Prepare a draft ready to publish
(including the SoTD para above) and place at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/10/xmlbase-2e/Overview.html


> 
> 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
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Create an XLink DoC.
> 

Norm posted a DoC at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/xlink11-doc.html

XLink conformance criteria question, Boris Zbarsky 
--------------------------------------------------
Handling the xlink:actuate attribute semantics are
"shoulds" which means to do it unless there is a
good reason not to.  Boris asks in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JulSep/0003
whether is SVG a good reason not to?  Put another way,
if you put an xlink attribute on an SVG element, do you
do the SVG semantics or the XLink semantics?

SVG defines where xlink attributes can go (and make 
sense), and if you put an xlink attr elsewhere, the
behavior is undefined by SVG.

ACTION to Norm:  Follow up the email.


XPointer to redefined elements, Ignacio Hernandez-Ros 
-----------------------------------------------------
This is an XPointer comment, not an XLink comment.
Remove from DoC.


XPointer considered incomprehensible, Bjoern Hoehrmann 
------------------------------------------------------
This is an XPointer comment, not an XLink comment.
Remove from DoC.


> 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.

Other 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
> 
> Henry has completed the "edited in place" changes.
> 
> Richard notes that there were some comments sent to the
> xml-editor list:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2006JulSep/0004
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2006JulSep/0005
> 
> ACTION to Francois: Add the above two issues to the PE document.
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document per last telcon's
> decisions.
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Respond to Dieter saying we'll fix the 152
> and 153 typos but explaining for 153 that we really mean the "not".

Francois did reply to Dieter.

---

Regarding PE150, John comments:

The successor to 4646 is already being drafted, so John thinks
we should instead point to BCP 47 which should remain a pointer 
to the latest.

Francois has some concerns but is willing to go with BCP 47
as long as we have a correct URL for it which we believe is
http://rfceditor.org/rfc/bcp/bcp47.txt

We would also remove the reference to the registry.

ACTION to Francois:  Re-wordsmith the proposed resolution.

---

ACTION to John:  Reply to the commentor for PE157.

> 
> 
> 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
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Record Anne's issue/proposed resolution
> in the Namespace PE document.

ACTION to Richard continued.

> 
> 8. XInclude Rec was published 2004 December 30 at:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xinclude-20041220/
> 
> The XInclude Second Edition PER has been published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xinclude-20061003/
> 
> The Call for Review is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2006OctDec/0001
> Please urge your AC rep to complete this review.
> 
> It turns out XInclude should be under CPP not PP.
> Henry and Philippe to address in PER with Daniel
> addressing in the final REC text.
> 
> 
> 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/2006Oct/0014
> 
Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2006 16:03:15 GMT

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