W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 February 11

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:56:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020E69D281@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
Konrad
John
Glenn 
Simon xx:13
Paul 
Henry

[6 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
------- 
Norm
Richard, proxy to Henry

Absent organizations
--------------------
Google
Univ of Edinburgh
François Yergeau
Daniel Veillard


We welcome Simon to the WG.


Probably regrets from Norm for Feb 25.

> 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 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 CG has asked if the XML Core WG would be planning 
> to meet f2f during that week.

Paul and Henry expect to attend.

John and Glenn do not.

Konrad is unsure but would like to.

It is expected Norm would attend.

Unknown:  Simon, Daniel, Francois, Richard.

> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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

There is a sentence in Appendix D.3 for relax ng that
is correctly in Appendix D.2 for XML Schema but shouldn't
be there in Appendix D.3 for relax ng.

Consensus:  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 Paul (in 2 weeks):  Update to the Errata document at
http://www.w3.org/2005/09/xml-id-errata

ACTION to Henry:  Think about the appropriateness of
the same sentence in Appendix D.2.

> 
> 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 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.
> 
> John asked whether we should have two schemas, one for
> each of our conformance levels.
> The notion was to have a schema for people who want to implement
> the basic level of conformance, so they only have simple links.
> For the DTD, which is just a sample, we just need a smaller
> subset. Likewise, the XSD should include only declarations 
> for the simple links.
> 
> ACTION to Henry, John:  Produce a basic level
> conformance XSD and RelaxNG schema for XLink.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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
> 

Simon introduced the overall issue and we discussed things some.

We had tentative agreement that we should at least issue some
errata making clearer what should happen in the case of certain
errors in the xml-stylesheet PI, though final decisions and
details remain to be determined.

There were other issues in Simon's email (e.g., DOM) that we
need to consider.

The WG is asked to review Simon's email and draft and discuss
in email and be prepared to discuss on our next telcon.


> 
> 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/2008Dec/0005
> 
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 16:57:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 February 2009 16:57:37 GMT