Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 April 11

Attendees
---------
 Konrad
 Paul
 Glenn
 Norm
 Leonid
 Henry
 François 
 Daniel  xx:12

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


[7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
------- 
Richard 

Absent organizations
--------------------
Univ of Edinburgh (with regrets)
John Cowan
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).

Accepted.

> 
> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 

Norm sent email about < in attribute values at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0006
Richard replied at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0007

Henry doesn't see why Richard's explanation makes the problem go
away.  Glenn explains it, but Henry points out that more explanation
would be useful--at least in the test, and maybe in the spec.

Glenn suggested putting something in the table near the end (4.4)
if we put anything in the spec.

Henry suggests adding an example such as this case to Appendix D
(in XML 1.0 4th Ed).

ACTION to Glenn:  Suggest some wording/example to add to the spec
that covers the "< in attribute value" issue (actually, internal 
entity in attributes).

---

Michael SMcQ sent email on the subject of schema infoset fix-ups at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0002

ACTION to Henry:  Look at CMSMCQ's email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0002
and let us know if there is anything the XML Core WG should do/say
about this.

> 
> 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.
> 

No action/discussion at this time.

> 
> 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.

Remember to correct the IP part of the Status section per
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2007JanMar/0000

> 
> 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's latest draft (as of 2007 April 10) is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/03/xmlresourceid/

CONSENSUS to publish as an ID.

ACTIOn to Norm:  Request publication of our draft as an ID.

> 
> 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.
 
No action/discussion at this time.

Henry noted that there were some posting to the XLink comments list.

After the call, Paul read Henry Zongoro's email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2007JanMar/0012
and concluded that our soon-to-be-published HRRI ID will address
this issue, so I suggest we wait until it is published and
then reply to HenryZ referencing the ID.

As far as the XLink conformance issue, I have little sympathy for 
those who think XLink should try to say how applications should use 
it, but no better idea of how to answer this issue once and for all
than the attempts already made by Norm and Henry.

> 
> 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.

ACTION to Francois:  Add a new PE per John's comments above
and make some suggested resolution wording.

> 
> 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#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.

ACTION to Daniel continued.

> 
> 9.  Henry raises that RFC 3023 is out of date and the draft
> replacement has expired.  

Paul proposed we drop this item from our ongoing agenda.

If we ever see a new draft, we can reconsider this item.
 
> 
> 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/2007Mar/0025
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 16:01:26 UTC