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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 June 20

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:08:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30207D113DC@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


[7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 9]


Absent organizations
François Yergeau
John Cowan

> 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).


We will NOT have a call on July 4.

Regrets from Richard, Henry for July 18.

> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> XML clarification
> -----------------
> Norm sent email about < in attribute values at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0006
> Glenn's proposed wording is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0024
> and slightly modified by
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0030
> ACTION to Francois:  Add this to the PE document for countdown.
> 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/
> The CR-ready C14N 1.1 draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/05/CR-xml-c14n11-20070509 
> Paul sent out a draft CR request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0040
> We had a successful CR telcon on the 15th, and the CR
> should be published this week.

We expect it to be published tomorrow.  Thanks to Henry
for some last minute fiddling.


The XSSM has asked if they could take ownership of the
dsig usage note at

The XML Core WG willingly passes ownership of the dsig 
usage note to XSSM.


The XSSM is planning an interop session in Mountain View
on September 27th--see
Interested XML Core WG members are urged to attend.
Konrad expects to go; maybe Henry will too.  Others welcome.


Konrad pointed out some issues with Appendix A at

ACTION to Konrad:  Send email to the XML Core list with the latest 
suggested updated version of Appendix A and examples.


ACTION to Paul:  Request that XSSM produce a test suite for C14N 1.1.

> 4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs -> HRRIs
> 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.
> We need to 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. 
> 4.5.  HRRI RFC
> The latest HRRI draft was published as an ID on May 14 at
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-01.txt
> The most recent editor's draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2007/04/hrri/draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-01c.html
> Martin Duerst raise security issues with the HRRI draft.
> (Still don't think we have that email, but Norm added 
> words to the draft in an attempt to address them.)
> Martin also raised other issues:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2007Jun/0004
> about how our HRRI wording isn't quite compatible with IRIs.
> We plan to add wording about characters in the Unicode 
> private use area to address Martin's latest comments.
> ACTION to Norm:  Publish another ID addressing Martin's
> comments.

We've now gotten lots more comments from Martin:

1.  There are some more disallowed characters in IRIs.
    Richard says we should add these characters to our list.

2.  Having a separate definition vrs editing the IRI spec.
    This is mostly for convenience and speed.

3.  Doesn't like HRRI name.
    We'd consider another name if we can find one more
    generally acceptable.  We do think that allowing spaces
    (as is the case with HRRIs) does improve readability,
    but we'd be happy with any name that works.  We had
    called these XML Resource Identifiers, but (1) the XRI
    acronym is already taken and (2) these have meaning and
    usefulness outside of XML.

4.  We say it's inconvenient for authors, and we can tone
    down that wording.

5.  The classification as a BCP.  We're not sure why Norm
    made this a BCP--we were thinking of an RFC.  We'll
    check with Norm.

6.  Martin wants more about security issues.  We don't think
    this is necessary, but we'll try to go on some more
    about this.

7.  Security wrt space-like characters (tabs, CR/LF) and <>
    delimiters, etc.  We could add some text about these.

8.  On not percent encoding things any earlier than necessary,
    Martin objects to the phrase
    "nor the process of passing a Human Readable Resource
    Identifier to a process or software component responsible
    for dereferencing it SHOULD trigger percent encoding"
    and Richard isn't sure why that's there either.  These
    words came from XLink 1.1 says that, so we need to try
    to figure out what it came from and whether we want to
    keep or delete it.

ACTION to Paul:  Check with Norm about these words.

Martin had also sent
which most of us had never seen, so we need to review that.

ACTION to Richard:  Review Martin's message and post to
the WG list.

ACTION to Paul:  Send an initial reply to Martin.

> 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.
> ACTION to Francois:  Add a new PE per John's comments above
> and make some suggested resolution wording.
> ----
> Henry/Richard discussed the test suite issues raised by Frans Englich:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-testsuite/2007Mar/ 
> These need to be resolved. 
> Richard reports that the 2005 issue has been resolved in the latest
> draft. 
> The one from 2006, character references with numbers with dozens 
> of digits, may not be. 
> ACTION: Richard to construct a test case for these issues.
> 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
> [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/2007Jun/0005
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 16:10:34 UTC

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