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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 October 10

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:15:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020900BCEB@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
 Paul 
 Konrad 
 John 
 Glenn
 Norm
 Richard 
 Philippe  xx:29
 Daniel 

[8 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 9]

Regrets
------- 
Henry

Absent organizations
--------------------
François Yergeau


Norm gives regrets for Oct 24th.


> 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).

Accepted.

> 
> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.

The draft agenda for the TP week f2f is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/09/xml-f2f-20071105-agenda.htm


> EXI first WD
> ------------
> Title: Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) Format 1.0
> Pre pub URI: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/EXI/docs/format/exi.html
> Post pub TR URI: http://www.w3.org/TR/exi/
> 
> John's review is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Aug/0012
> 
> ACTION to John:  Send in the technical comments with a note
> that we have higher level comments to come.

ACTION to John:  Check to see if you fulfilled the above action.

> 
> 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/
> 
> Regarding C14N 1.1:
> Konrad had pointed out some issues with Appendix A.  He sent email
> with the latest suggested updated version of Appendix A and examples:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/0050
> 
> There is another thread on C14N 1.1 at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Aug/thread.html#msg18

Interoperability testing was performed on 27 September.  
A report of the outcome is at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2007Oct/0000

Regarding the change from 1.0 to 1.1 highlighted in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Aug/0018
we will revert to 1.0 wording.

Regarding point 2 of the interoperability email, it sounds like
the issue is explained well in the email.  Glenn will try to
propose some wording to the XML Core list.

ACTION to Glenn:  Propose some new wording to address point 2
of the interoperability testing feedback email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2007Oct/0000

Point 3 complains about appendix A being too difficult to 
understand, partly because it uses 3986 language which is
also hard to understand.

We have three choices:

1.  say hard to understand isn't wrong, so leave it as is.
2.  delete appendix A altogether, possibly adding to the
    main text if there is anything "normative" only mentioned
    in the existing appendix.
3.  rewrite appendix A.

ACTION to Konrad:  Send us pointers to suggestions for rewriting
appendix A.

One such pointer is 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Sep/0017

> 
> 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
> 
> Henry sent email to I18N Core suggesting our LEIRI solution at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Aug/0032
> 
> We received a reply at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Sep/0008
> 
> We are still awaiting comments from Martin and a sugggested
> schedule for the RFC update from I18N Core.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> The following XML PE are in countdown until THIS telcon:
> 
> PE156 Inclusion of external entities 
> PE157 UTF-16 and Byte Order Mark 
> PE158 UTF-8 BOM 
> PE159 No < in Attribute Values 
> 
> See
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/08/proposed-xml10-4e-and-xml11-2e-errata
> for further details
> 
> ----
> 
> 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 1.1 deployment.

Discussion continued.

> 
> [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/2007Sep/0005
> 
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:16:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:36 GMT