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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 November 21

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:03:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30209731EE4@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
November 21, from
          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
          15:00-16:00 UTC
          16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
          17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
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 telcon [3] and
   f2f meetings [4, 5, 6] 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.


3.  C14N 

The C14N 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xml-c14n11-20070621

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/


C14N 1.1 Interoperability testing was performed on 27 September.  
A report of the outcome is at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/20
07Oct/0000

We had productive discussions during our f2f--see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0028

We are planning to drop Appendix A and augment the prose
in 2.4.  Frederick will send updated wording suggestions
for this section by mid-week.  Glenn will incorporate into
the draft.

ACTION to Frederick: Update the redline version with our 
latest decisions and resend to the groups by Nov 14.

ACTION to Glenn: Produce a new editor's draft reflecting 
the changes suggested in Frederick's updated redline. 

We noticed a problem in the merging process where 'Base' 
argument to join-uris ends with "..". 

ACTION to Thomas and Frederick: Get implementors to run 
this new test case and report the results.


4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs -> HRRIs -> LEIRIs

The (Second Edition) XML Base 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. 

4.5.  HRRIs -> LEIRIs

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

Henry sent email to I18N Core suggesting our LEIRI solution at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Aug/0032

Martin's latest IRI draft (defining LEIRIs in section 7) is at 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-bis-01.txt

We've exchanged some email with Martin about some details,  see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0016
but in general it looks like we'll be happy with the definition of
LEIRIs in the new IRI RFC.  There are a few outstanding issues; see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0034

Scheduling for the revised IRI RFC is still unclear.


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

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#NPE27


8. XML 1.0 5th Edition

I had sent out email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2007OctDec/0021
and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2007OctDec/0059
and we have gotten very little response--see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-blueberry-comments/2007Oct/

We had some discussion at our f2f--see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0031

We appear to have unofficial agreement by most implementors
to consider making this change if it goes through the W3C
process.

Paul talked to Ian Jacobs who suggested the best way to 
make this change is to issue an XML 1.0 5th Edition PER 
with a relatively long review period.  (Note, by doing so, 
we don't really open the discussion of whether this is an 
erratum or not, so the new title for this discussion is 
"XML 1.0 5th Edition".)

Whether we allow XML 1.0 processors to accept documents 
labelled version="1.1" is separate from the name char issue, 
and we don't know if we are going to try to do that in this 
erratum too.  Thoughts?

We asked if unlabelled documents would remain 1.0 or not. 
MSM would like to say an unlabelled document can be attempted 
to be processed by any processor whereas right now an unlabelled 
document can only be a 1.0 document (since the XML declaration 
is required by XML 1.1).  Thoughts?



[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/2007Oct/0016
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0016
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0028
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0031
Received on Monday, 19 November 2007 17:04:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:38 UTC