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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 February 14

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:54:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302064C9021@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
February 14, from
          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
          16:00-17:00 UTC
          16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
          17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
          21:30-22:30 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 (Dec 20) telcon [3] and
   the current task status [2] (have any questions, comments,
   or corrections ready by the beginning of the call).

Regrets from Richard, Henry


2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.

Norm reviewed the XBL2 Last Call:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0018

Shortly thereafter, I noticed:

> The second Last Call for XBL2 has been published:
>
> XML Binding Language (XBL) 2.0
> W3C Working Draft 17 January 2007
> Editor: Ian Hickson
>
> This Version:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xbl-20070117/
> Latest Version:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/
>
> The comment period ends 9 February 2007. All comments should be  
> send to public-appformats mail list.

ACTION to Norm:  Ensure your comments are still relevant, then
plan to send in your comments on Feb 9th barring any XML Core
member comments to the contrary.

---

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 have been asked to review XForms 1.1 which is going to 
Last Call soon.

The current working draft dated 12 Feb 2007 appears at 
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group/Drafts/1.1/fullspec/index-all.html 

A diff-marked version showing the changes for 1.1 relative to 
XForms 1.0 Second Edition appears here: 
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group/Drafts/1.1/fullspec/index-diff.html


Are there any volunteers to review?


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/

----

Konrad raised an issue about Exclusive XML Canonicalization at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0043 

We need to take a closer look at this to see what if anything 
we want to do about this. Perhaps it's just something to send 
to the XML Security WG when they start up next year.


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

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

Henry reported some feedback at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0010

We discussed this on our last telcon, and I believe there
are no outstanding actions here (except perhaps for Henry).

However, Henry then reported that a further problem has been 
pointed out:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2007JanMar/
0001 ff
which we need to discuss.

Philippe le Hegaret is checking with Ian Jacobs to see what our 
options are if we decided we wanted to rapidly publish a definition 
of XRIs separately, and then put normative references to that 
definition in xml:base 2e and XLink 1.1, without resetting their 
Process state if at all possible.


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

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.

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.


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.  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.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/2006Dec/0055
Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 16:57:50 UTC

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