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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 March 14

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:58:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30206AF5A7B@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>



Attendees
---------
Konrad
Paul
Ravi (on IRC xx:37)
Glenn
Norm
Leonid
Richard  xx:30
Henry

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

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

Regrets
------- 
Daniel

Absent organizations
--------------------
François Yergeau 
Daniel Veillard (with regrets)
Lew Shannon
John Cowan


> 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).

Accepted

> 
> 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
> 

We'll have John send in his comments.

ACTION to John:  Send in your comments (with the correction as
prompted by Paul's email) as the XML Core comments.

----

Norm did an XBL2 review and suggested xml:id instead of id which
was pushed back.

Henry suggests we should make a formal objection.

ACTION to Norm:  File a formal objection in the name of XML Core WG.

> ---
> 
> 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?
> 

ACTION to Norm:  Review the draft.

> ---
> 
> There was an issue about Bare surrogates in XML raised via the
> XML CG list; see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Mar/0003 ff
> 

We will assume Richard's response (and ChrisL's reply)
has closed this issue.

> 
> 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.
> 

ACTION to JohnC continued.

> The XPath 1.0 data model (which C14N uses) allows for undeclaring
> namespaces, but this can only be serialized using NS 1.1.  But
> Konrad says C14N inherits the namespaces-in-scope from its ancestors.
> 
> We may need to change wording in C14N 1.1 about how namespaces are 
> canonicalized. 
> 
> Richard and Konrad sent follow up email about this at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0032
> and
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Mar/0002
> 

We will defer this to next meeting, as Richard was not 
on the call, and no one else felt ready to discuss this.

> 
> 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. 
> 

> ACTION to Henry:  Give us on update on the status of XML Base.

It's waiting for us to say what should happen next--whether we
want a Director's call now or not.

> 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.

Norm sent out a proposal at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Mar/0007

The wording seemed much clearer, but Henry doesn't think it will
answer Mike Kay's request which was for some conformance criteria
for XML Resource Identifiers.

Norm points out that they are just strings, so there are no
conformance criteria.  If they are strings, they are conformant.

Norm suggests we replace the "Though many applications do not 
check..." para in his proposal with:

  An XML R. I. is a sequence of Unicode characters; it imposes
  no further conformance criteria on applications.  The encoding
  rules above will transform any sequence of characters into one
  which satisfies the bare minimum syntactic requirements
  of IRIs and URIs.

Henry reraised the issue of where (in what spec) we should put 
the defn of XML Resource Identifier.

Richard suggests that it is perfectly reasonable to define X.R.I.
in an RFC.

ACTION to Richard and Norm:  Draft an RFC defining XML Resource
Identifiers.

Then, we need change the reference in XML Base to this RFC.

> 
> 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.
> 

ACTIONs to Norm on hold until we get the X.R.I. RFC done.

> 
> 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
> 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.  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/2007Feb/0031
> 
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:59:06 UTC

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