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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 February 28

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:01:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302067FAFDD@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "public-xml-core-wg" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
February 28, 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).


2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.

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

JohnC emailed his draft review at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0020

---

The XML CG has asked that XML Core review:
Widgets 1.0 Requirements
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-reqs-20070209/
and
Widgets 1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/

Any volunteers?


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/

Norm developed a C14N diff at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0013

----

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.

---

What is the relationship between C14N 1.1 and XML 1.1?

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

Namespaces 1.1 does allow the undeclaring of a namespace prefix
which might cause problems for C14N.  But then we decided there
might already be problems with C14N and NS 1.0 (not preserving
prefixes in some cases--what JohnC calls qname-correctness).

JohnC suggests:  If a namespace is declared in the input, then 
it must be declared in the output.

John points out that it's not clear how you generate an xpath 1.0 
model for an XML 1.1 document.

Note also Konrad's email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0018

ACTION to JohnC:  Send email to the list summarizing the issue
and your suggested solution.


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

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

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

Norm suggests we provide a more crisp defn of XML Resource 
Identifier and say processors "should" check it but don't
have to.

ACTION to Norm:  Draft a better definition of XML Resource
Identifier.


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.


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/2007Feb/@@@@
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 05:01:38 UTC

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