- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 12:12:53 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- John xx:14 Glenn Mohamed Simon Paul Henry [6 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 11] Regrets ------- Richard, proxy to Henry Absent organizations -------------------- A-SIT MarkLogic Univ of Edinburgh (with regrets, proxy to Henry) Daniel Veillard François Yergeau > 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. > > We welcome Mohamed ZERGAOUI of Innovimax to the WG. > > ----- > > The next Technical Plenary (and AC meeting) week (TPAC week) > will be Nov 2-6 in Santa Clara, California: > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html#Future > > The XML Core WG is tentatively planning to meet f2f > during that week. > > ---- > > Addison Phillips of I18N sent email about > Unicode Normalization in XML 1.0 5th Ed.; see > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0019 > > Allowing canonical equivalents to be treated as identical > directly in XML implies that an element's start tag and > end tag could be character-for-character different. This > is not currently the case--such would be not well-formed > and the input is therefore not XML--and the WG does not want > to make it the case. > > We had no objections to adding some "motherhood" notes saying > that XML producers SHOULD produce normalized output. > > We are still considering whether we should put XML 1.1 wording > about normalization checking into XML 1.0. > > ACTION to Henry: Discuss with others at the AC meeting > the possibility of adding to XML 1.0 via erratum the > "should" normalization checking from XML 1.1. > Henry points out that "XML processors SHOULD provide a user option..." implies a new feature which means we cannot do this in an erratum, so he doesn't think we can change 1.0 to add normalization verification. John suggests we could perhaps use some MAY wording associated with the motherhood note. ACTION to Paul: Send suggested draft wording to the WG mailing list. > Paul provided a status update to Addison and I18N at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Mar/0005 > > ----- > > HTML request for clearer XML serialization > ------------------------------------------ > Henry raised the issue that HTML folks think the XML > spec is broken because it doesn't define error recovery > and doesn't discuss serialization. > > ACTION to Henry: Send email to the XML Core WG list > outlining the suggestion to define a serialization spec > including the rationale. ACTION to Henry continued. > ----- > > Overlap between Powder and LEIRIs > --------------------------------- > At > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Mar/0006 > Henry writes: > > Please review section 2.1.3 of the forthcoming draft of Protocol for > Web Description Resources (POWDER): Grouping of Resources [1]: It > says things about e.g. entity expansion which I think at risk of > confusing proper layering, and it also doesn't seem to recognise the > LEIRI spec. > > Unfortunately, this is already a PR, and I'm not sure I can wrap my > head around this just now without help and we don't have a telcon > scheduled until April 8. If anyone has any ideas, please send email. This spec just went back to Last Call. ACTION to John: Review section 2.1.3 of the POWDER spec at http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-grouping/20090309.html#canon > > ----- > > Pointer Methods in RDF > ---------------------- > The ERT WG has issued a FPWD entitled "Pointer Methods in RDF": > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-Pointers-in-RDF-20090310/ > > This seems to overlap with XPointer (or it should). > > Norm reviewed this for the XML Core WG at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Mar/0014 > and there has been some follow up email discussion. > Norm had two points, one about the use of ptr:XMLNamespace > and another about their pointing into XML documents > using byte/character offsets and such. ACTION to Paul: Send Norm's email about using byte/character offsets and ptr:XMLNamespace (suggesting they use a different name). > > ----- > > ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 as requested at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0001 > that they be allowed to use "xml-model" as a processing instruction > target name token. John thinks we should approve this. Henry worries that people will then expect that this is something from W3C, but he will not stand in the way. We should consider adding entries for xml-stylesheet and xml-model to the xml namespace document at http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace. > > > 3. XML 1.0 > > See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-errata > > The XML 1.0 5th Edition Recommendation is at > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/ > > > 4. XML Test Suite. > > See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-test-suite > > 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/ > > > 5. 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. > > The NS 1.0 2nd Ed Errata document is at > http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/xml-names-errata > > The NS PE doc is at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata.html > > Richard added some discussion at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata.html#npe29 > The WG agreed with his direction and asked that he go forward with it. > > ACTION to Richard: Fill in a proposed resolution for NPE29. ACTION to Richard continued. Henry will work with Richard on NPE29. We will then plan to issue NS 1.0 3rd Ed. Whether we put ns prefix undeclaration into NS 1.0 3rd Ed remains an open issue. > > > 6. LEIRIs > > See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#leiri > > The WG Note defining LEIRIs is at > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-leiri-20081103/ > > The following specs need to be revised to reference LEIRIs: > XML 1.0 6th Edition > XML 1.1 3rd Edition > XML Base 2nd Edition > XLink 1.1 (First Edition) > XInclude 3rd Edition > > 7. xml:id > > The xml:id Recommendation is at > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-xml-id-20050909/ > > John Cowan submitted a proposed erratum at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jan/0009 > and the WG had Consensus to do as follows: > > The sentence "A document that uses xml:id attributes that > have a declared type other than xs:ID will always generate > xml:id errors" in Appendix D.3 should be deleted. > > ACTION to Henry: Update the Errata document at > http://www.w3.org/2005/09/xml-id-errata ACTION to Henry continued. > > ACTION to Henry: Think about the appropriateness of > the same sentence in Appendix D.2. ACTION to Henry continued. > > 8. XML Base 2nd Edition 2nd Rec > > See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-base > > The XML Base 2nd Edition Recommendation is at > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xmlbase-20090128/ > > > 9. 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/ > > The LC review period ended 16 May 2008. > > Norm has prepared a DoC at > http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/05/xlinklc/ > > ACTION to Norm: Update the DoC. > > ACTION to Norm: Update XLink 1.1 to refer to the LEIRI note. > > There's an open question about whether the XSD/DTD > should default the xlink:type attribute value. > None of this effects our last call because the > XSD/DTD are not normative. > > ACTION to Henry, John: Produce a basic level > conformance XSD and RelaxNG schema for XLink. ACTION to Henry, John continued. > > We plan to skip CR and going directly to PR. > > Paul drafted a PR transition request at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Mar/0013 > > The Implementation Report at > http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/01/xlink11-implementation > is pitiful. We'll need to augment this to be able to request PR. > > ---- > > Simon Cox, on behalf of the Open Geospatial Consortium, has > asked some questions about the XLink 1.1 XML Schema: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2009JanMar/0004 > and ht replied: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2009JanMar/0005 > We did not get to this topic--Paul sent email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0011 to start more discussion. > > 10. 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. > > > 11. Associating Stylesheets. > > See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-ss > > Associating stylesheets with XML version 1.0 is at: > http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/ > > The Errata document is at: > http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/errata > > Simon has requested we consider revisions; see his email at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0002 > and his suggested draft at > http://simon.html5.org/specs/xml-stylesheet5 > > See also Simon's email at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0014 > outlining various issues. > > Paul sent email giving Arbortext's behavior and other comments at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0022 > > ACTION to Henry: Determine Saxon behavior in various erroneous cases > and reply to Simon's email with results and suggested resolutions. ACTION to Henry continued--due asap. ACTION to Paul: After receiving Henry's email, send email with a concrete set of suggested revisions to the Assoc SS spec. > > Others are invited to reply to Simon's email with suggested > resolutions. > > > paul > > [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/2009Mar/0004 >
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 16:14:08 UTC