W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 April 11

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:23:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30206F7E009@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>



We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
April 11, from
          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
          15:00-16:00 UTC
          16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
          17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
          20:30-21:30 in most of India
on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#.
We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 .

See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents
and other information.  If you have additions to the agenda, please
email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon.

Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and
completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it
at the beginning of the call.


Agenda
======
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 

The C14N 1.1 Last Call working draft is published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20061220

Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0) WG Note 
has been published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-C14N-issues-20061220/

Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML Environment 
WG Note has been published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-DSig-usage-20061220/

We see no reason that C14N 1.1 couldn't be used with XML 1.1.
Philippe LeH would like us to make the relationship between
C14N 1.1 and XML 1.1 clear in the C14N 1.1 spec.

Paul asks why we are trying to define the relationship
of C14N 1.1 with XML 1.1 when C14N 1.0 doesn't have a
relationship with XML 1.1, and all we were trying to do
is fix the problem with xml:id.  The WG isn't eager to 
try to solve these other issues in C14N 1.1.

We will plan to put some sort of non-normative note into 
the CR draft of the C14N 1.1 spec about its relationship 
(or lack thereof) to XML 1.1.

The LC ends April 30.  We can start a CR soon after that.
We don't know what kind of implementation experience we
will get, but we should take it to CR in May.


4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs.

The (Second Edition) PER has been published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xmlbase-20061220/ 

It's now waiting for us to say what should happen next--whether 
we want a Director's call now or not.

Mike Kay thinks the defn of XML Resource Identifier is too vague. 

We decided to write an RFC to define XML Resource Identifier.
The plan is to get this to an RFC and then reference it from
XML Base (which we can then take to REC) and others. 

Norm sent a first draft at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Mar/0012

Richard suggests that we say a valid X.R.I. is a string
that, when processed by this RFC, produces a valid IRI.
(This is basically Norm's second paragraph after the bullets.)

We agree to remove "URI" in section 2.

We agreed to change the name to Human Readable Resource 
Identifier (HRRI).

Richard sent some motivational text at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Mar/0010
that Norm should consider.

ACTION to Norm:  Generate another draft.


5.  XLink update.

The XLink CR was published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ 

The latest almost PR-ready XLink draft is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/

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

Paul wrote a SECOND draft PR request at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0059

ACTION to Norm:  Complete resolution of DoC.

ACTION to WG (need volunteer):  Update the Implementation Report.

ACTION to Norm:  Produce PR-ready draft.

ACTION to Norm:  Produce diff/review version.

HOWEVER, the actions here are pending until we get the HRRI
RFC since we plan to reference it from XLink.


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 previous 
telcons' decisions.

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.

We have decided that John's email should be sent to the commentor
as a response (done, see [11]), and that the only change resulting from 
this PE are some editorial changes as outlined in John's email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0056

ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document with John's editorial
changes as the proposed resolution to PE 157.

[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2006OctDec/0010

----

John sent email about a new PE related to UTF-8 BOM at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0067
proposing the following language as a new paragraph in 4.3.3
for both XML 1.0 and XML 1.1:

	If the replacement text of an external entity is to
	begin with the character U+FEFF, and no text declaration
	is present, then a Byte Order Mark MUST be present,
	whether the entity is encoded in UTF-8 or UTF-16.


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/

We got a comment about the XInclude spec at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0013

Paul suggested some specific wording to clarify the xi:fallback at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0023

Henry suggested wording to clarify xml:lang fixup at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0022

ACTION to Daniel:  Process these as (editorial) errata to the
latest XInclude spec.


9.  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.tx
t
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/2007Mar/0025
Received on Monday, 9 April 2007 15:24:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:35 GMT