W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > July 2008

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2008 July 30

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:33:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020C3BA5FA@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>



Attendees
---------
 Konrad 
 Glenn
 Norm
 Paul 
 Daniel

[5 organizations (5 with proxies) present out of 9]

Regrets
------- 

Absent organizations
--------------------
Google
Univ of Edinburgh
W3C
François Yergeau


Regrets from Konrad for August 13.


> 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.
> 
> October Technical Plenary
> -------------------------
> The next Technical Plenary is scheduled for October in Cannes:
> http://www.w3.org/2008/10/TPAC/Overview.html
> We have tentatively decided to meet there.
> 
> The schedule is at: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/TPAC/Schedule.html
> XML Core meets Monday and Tuesday.
> 
> Registration for the October TPAC2008: Combined Technical 
> Plenary and Advisory Committee Meeting is now open at 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/. 
> Registration will close on 28 September, but the discount 
> rate for hotel rooms will expire as of 8 September 2008.
> 
> Probable attendees:  Henry, Norm, Richard
> Quite unlikely:  Glenn, Francois
> Uncertain:  Konrad (but unlikely), John, Daniel, Paul
> 
> 
> 3.  C14N 1.1
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#c14n1.1
> 
> The C14N 1.1 Recommendation has been published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-c14n11-20080502/
> 
> 
> 4.  XML 1.0
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-errata
> 
> The XML 1.0 5th Edition PER has been published at
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PER-xml-20080205/
> 
> The PER period ended 16 May 2008. 
> 
> We need to have at least three implementations that 
> pass the test suite for each of the errata that have 
> been newly applied to the 5th Edition. 
> 
> A preliminary implementation report is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/01/xml10-5e-implementation
> 
> ACTION to Richard, Henry:  Add a test to the XML 1.0 5th Ed 
> Test Suite about version=1.7 documents.

ACTION to Richard, Henry continued.

> 
> A preliminary implementation report is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/01/xml10-5e-implementation
> 
> Daniel is still considering implementing XML 1.0 5th Edition.

DV has implemented XML 1.0 5th Ed and is working on testing.

He has a question about one of the regression tests for which
he may send email to the list.

He will let us know when we can add what to the IR at which
point we will be able to ask Henry to push for a Directors
Decision and go to Rec.

> 
> Glenn reports that there are requests coming through the 
> Apache hierarchy for support. So they're waiting to see 
> if someone is going to place that requirement on Xerces.
> 
> Henry will poke around in the I18N community looking for 
> someone to place that requirement.
> 
> 
> 5.  XML 1.1
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml1.1
> 
> XML 1.1 2nd Edition published 2006 August 16:
> 
>  Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816
> 
> 
> 6.  XML Test Suite.
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-test-suite
> 
> Henry/Richard discussed some test suite issues raised by 
> Frans Englich:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-testsuite/2007Mar/ 
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Construct a test case for the XML test suite 
> issues raised by Frans Englich:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-testsuite/2007Mar/ 
> 

ACTION to Richard continued.

> 
> 7.  Namespaces in XML 1.0/1.1
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#ns1.0 and
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#ns1.1.
> 
> 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 partially updated the NS PE doc at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata.html
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Fill in proposed resolutions for NPE27-30.
> 

ACTION to Richard continued.

---

Konrad says he has been asked about putting namespace
undeclaring back into namespace 1.0.  He thinks we
need to do that.

Konrad also suggested the ability to use wildcards
in namespace undeclaration such as xmlns:x*="", but
no one else was eager to go there.

DV agrees that we should put namespace undeclaring 
into namespace 1.0.  Paul agrees.

Norm fears that we'll get pushback from the community
that doesn't like any changes to anything related to
XML 1.0, but he does agree that namespace undeclaring
is useful.

ACTION to Henry:  Check amongst W3C staff to see how they
would feel about us pushing forward a Namespace 1.0 3rd
Edition PER that included as an "erratum" the additional
capability (from NS 1.1) to undeclare a namespace prefix.

> 
> 8.  LEIRIs
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#leiri
> 
> A summary of what specs need to be revised to reference LEIRIs is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Dec/0045
> 
> Martin's latest IRI draft (defining LEIRIs in section 7) is at 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-bis-03
> 
> Paul's latest email to Martin about this is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2008Jul/0021
> 

Martin made some replies at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2008Jul/0023
including raising an issue about LEIRI versus LEIRI reference.

Those on the call (and JohnC in email) agree we always really
want to refer to LEIRI references.

ACTION to Paul: Reply to Martin saying that we do really mean
LEIRI reference.

> As a WG, we need to revisit our options for making progress here.
> 

Paul asks if we should reconsider making a WG Note or if we
should continue to wait for Martin.

DV doesn't feel that a WG Note is worth it.  No one else had
much of an opinion.

Unless a preponderance of WG members who were not on today's
call have a strong feeling, we will continue to wait for IRI-bis.

> 
> 9.  XML Base 2nd Edition 2nd PER
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-base
> 
> The (second) XML Base (Second Edition) PER has been published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PER-xmlbase-20080320/
> and announced at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008JanMar/0112
> 
> The XML Base PER review period ended 30 June 2008.
> 
> We have some comments in the comments list:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/0003
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/0011
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/0012
> 
> We discussed the XHTML WG comment at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/0011
> a bit.
> 
> The IRI-bis does allow x00-1F in LEIRIs, but such LEIRIs cannot
> be expressed in an XML document.  The set of LEIRIs that can be
> expressed in an XML document is identical to what was always
> allowed in XML documents.  See, for example:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/#escaping
> in XML Base 1.0.  What we have in XML Base 1.1 is identical to
> what we allow in XML Base 1.0.
> 
> Norm responded to 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/0011
> at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008JulSep/0000
> explaining ourselves and suggesting the additional of a
> clarificatory sentence.
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Modify XML Base to clarify the meaning of 
> C0 controls and add an example that uses an IRI.
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Review and suggest a response to
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/0003
> and develop a DoC document.
> 

ACTIONs to Richard continued.

> 
> 10.  XLink 1.1.
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xlink1.1
> 
> The earlier XLink CR was published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ 
> 
> The XLink 1.1 LC was published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xlink11-20080331/
> and announced at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2008Apr/0006
> 
> The LC review period ended 16 May 2008.
> 
> Norm has prepared a DoC at 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/05/xlinklc/
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Continue to get the XSD for
> XLink at an accessible URI.

ACTION to Henry continued.

> 
> Henry raises a question about whether the XSD/DTD 
> should default the xlink:type attribute value:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2008Jul/0005
> None of this effects our last call because the
> XSD/DTD are not normative.
> 
> John asked whether we should have two schemas, one for
> each of our conformance levels.
> 
> ACTION to Henry, John:  Think about having a basic level
> conformance XSD for XLink.

ACTION to Henry, John continued.

> 
> Paul asks us to consider skipping CR and going directly to PR.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Review the history and make a recommendation
> as to whether we should skip CR and go directly to PR.
> 

ACTION to Henry continued.

> 
> 11.  XInclude 3rd Edition
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude
> 
> XInclude 2nd Edition is at:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xinclude-20061115
> 
> See http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude for
> LEIRI-related changes for the 3rd Edition.
> 
> ACTION to Daniel: Produce a PER-ready draft of XInclude 3rd Ed
> with appropriate references to the IRI RFC for LEIRIs.
> 
> 
> [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/2008Jul/0012
> 
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 15:35:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 July 2008 15:35:22 GMT