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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 January 31

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:44:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302062DB749@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Ravi (on IRC)

Guests for the C14N discussion

[6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 10]


Absent organizations
Lew Shannon 
François Yergeau 
John Cowan
Daniel Veillard

Richard gives regrets for Feb 14.

> 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.
> 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 Snapshot for TR page (last call version; outdated)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.

Norm (who wasn't on the call) said he had done the review and
would send it once he had some connectivity.  He did send it
before the end of the call at
but we didn't actually discuss it on the call (chair's fault).

> ---
> 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.

ACTION to Norm continued.


The XML CG is asking if the XML Core WG wants to
schedule a f2f during the Technical Plenary week to be held
this November in Boston and if so if we have any preferences
for days of the week.

The most detailed information for this week to date appears 
to be the plan sent out in 2005:


It is the week of the 4-10 November.  WG slots are expected
to be Monday-Tuesday 5-6 November or noon Thursday 8 November 
through noon Saturday 10 November.

Henry is in favor of having a f2f and doesn't care about the 

Richard also is generally in favor of a f2f and may have a
slight preference for the Thurs-Sat.

Glenn would come if he could get the budget.  Likewise with 

ACTION to Paul:  Report back to XML CG.

> 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

Henry suggested the basis of a response at

We had at one point thought of putting the definitive text into the
XML spec and referencing that defn from other specs, but we put it
into the XLink spec thinking that was going to be published soon.

Henry points out this is a comment against the PR review, so we can't
really make changes now.  Instead, we will suggest that we try to sort
this out better in the future.

Perhaps in an ideal world, XML Resource Identifier should be defined
in an RFC so that it can be referenced from many other specs, but for
now we'll have to leave it as is.

Henry will need to discuss this objection with the Director, indicating
that the WG feels it's too late to make changes now, that there is no
serious problem, but that we will consider in the future doing something
to improve the organization of this cross reference, perhaps defining
XML Resource Identifier in an RFC or something.

ACTION to Henry:  Represent the WG's position in a conversation with
the Director.

ACTION to Henry:  Respond (privately, or as appropriate) to the commentor.

> 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.

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
> ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document per previous 
> telcons' decisions.

ACTION to Francois continued.

> 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.

ACTION to Francois continued.

> [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

At best, we might issue an erratum rewording the last sentence of
the second paragraph of section 3.2 to be clear that the "fatal
error" only applies if the xi:fallback is not being ignored as
described in the fourth paragraph of section 3.2.

Henry agrees, and also mentioned confusing wording about xml:lang. 

ACTION to Paul:  Suggest some specific wording to clarify
the xi:fallback.

ACTION to Henry:  Send email suggesting wording to clarify 
xml:lang fixup.

CONSENSUS to make these editorial errata.

> 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/2006Dec/0055
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 16:47:16 UTC

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