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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 July 29

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:02:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302105F8B01@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Attendees
---------
Glenn
Norm
Paul 
Henry, W3C
Henry, U of E
Daniel

[6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 11]

Regrets
------- 
Richard

Absent organizations
--------------------
A-SIT
Google
Innovimax 
Opera
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.
> 
> The next Technical Plenary (and AC meeting) week (TPAC week)
> will be Nov 2-6 in Santa Clara, California:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/11/TPAC/Overview.html
> The XML Core WG is planning to meet f2f during that week.
> Registration is now open:
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC09/
> 
> ----
> 
> 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
> 
> We have agreed on a note to add; see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jun/0059
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Process the suggested additional note
> as an erratum to XML 1.0 5th Edition.
> 
> -----
> 
> 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.
> 
> Simon added his understanding of the issue at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jun/0007
> (second half of the message) and a thread starting with a
> reply from John ensued at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jun/thread.html#msg8
> 
> Perhaps with this email beginning, Henry only needs to reply
> to that thread to complete the following:
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Send email to the XML Core WG list
> outlining the suggestion to define a serialization spec
> including the rationale.
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> Henry forwarded some email from Makoto about the 5th Ed at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0024
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> We closed NPE20 and NPE22 with no action needed; Paul informed I18N:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0055
> 
> We had CONSENSUS not to add ns prefix undeclaration to NS 1.0 3rd Ed.
> Paul informed XML Security at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0054
> and Frederick replied (with no concerns) at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0058
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Close NPE20 and NPE22 with no action/changes.

Done.

> 
> Henry has produced an editor's draft of the NS 1.0 3rd Ed PER at
> 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-10-3e.html
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-10-3e-diff.html
> 

CONSENSUS:  The WG agreed to request publication of the NS 1.0 3rd Ed PER.

ACTION to Henry and Paul:  Submit a pub request for NS 1.0 3rd Ed PER.

> 
> 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
> 
> At one point we thought we had 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.
> 
> But they we reconsidered.  Henry sent further email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0048
> 
> We did agree that applying xml:id processing does not have
> any impact on the DTD/XSD validity of the document.
> 
> John re-summarized his thoughts at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0008
> 
> ACTION to Henry (and others):  Continue the xml:id issue
> discussion in email.
> 
> ---
> 
> Richard pointed out the following note in XML Base
> (just before section 3.1):
> 
>  This specification does not give the xml:base attribute
>  any special status as far as XML validity is concerned.
>  In a valid document the attribute must be declared in
>  the DTD, and similar considerations apply to other schema
>  languages.
> 
> and suggested a similar note should go into xml:id in D.1.
> 
> ---
> 
> There was also some email about some typos for which we (Henry)
> should process an editorial erratum:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0050
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Process an xml:id erratum to correct the typos; ref
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0050
> 
> 
> 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 an updated DoC at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/05/xlinklc/
> 
> Paul summarized the open issues at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0045
> 
> Norm replied at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0009
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC accordingly.
> 
> The latest editor's draft (of the PR) is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/
> and a diff-with-the-last-CR draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/Overview-diff.html
> 
> We are still fiddling to get the correct DTDs/XSDs/RNCs in.
> John sent email about this at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jul/0039.html
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Update the draft with the correct RNC.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Update the DTDs (both for full
> and simple conformance) so that the xlink:type attribute has no
> default (e.g., is #IMPLIED).  [WAS THIS DONE?]

We believe this has NOT yet been done.

> 
> Henry finds the DTD/RelaxNG/XSD fragments throughout the spec unhelpful
> and would like to remove them (leaving them only in the appendices).
> Henry specifically referenced the example immediately preceding 5.3.
> But this was in the CR, so we will probably leave it, but we will
> remove the default for xlink:type.
> 
> Henry sent an XML Schema for simple-conformant XLink at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0019
> 
> ACTION to Norm, John:  Review Henry's candidate basic level
> conformance XSD.  

Norm has reviewed it.

> 
> John sent RelaxNG schemas at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0022
> 
> Mohamed reviewed the RNG schema and thought it was fine.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Review John's RelaxNG schemas. 

Norm has reviewed it, but it is not yet in the latest editor's draft.

ACTION to Norm:  Update the draft with the latest schemas.

> 
> 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.
> 
> ACTION to Norm: Dig up more for the XLink 1.1 implementation report.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> As of 2009 July 20, Paul has updated the latest issues document at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm
> with resolutions in countdown and a few open issues.
> 
> ACTION to WG:  Review the proposed resolutions in count down at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm
> especially those questions shaded pink.

CONSENSUS to go with resolution 5.5b where duplicate pseudo-attributes
mean the whole PI MUST be ignored.

TENTANTIVE CONSENSUS (without Simon and John) to go with option #1 for 
issue #7 (aka option #1 for issue #11) which says that the value of
all pseudo-attributes (including href) just gets passed through to
the (rest of the) application.  Of course, another layer of the
application can do whatever validation of the href value.

CONSENSUS on issue #15 to go with Henry's latest suggestion at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jul/0072
and let the editors develop the specific wording for the draft.

> 
> We discussed that we should add a conformance statement
> to the spec.  We tried a few suggested wordings including:
> 
>  An application (as defined in [XML]) conforms to this spec
>  if is processing all XML processing instructions whose
>  [PITarget] is 'xml-stylesheet' as specified by this spec.
> 
> but didn't get complete closure.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Suggest some conformance wording in email.

Done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jul/0017

We leave it to the editors to provide specific wording in the draft.

> 
> ACTION to Henry: Check to ensure it is acceptable to create
> a draft PER but no errata.

We plan to publish a "draft PER" document and request comments
before we publish the actual PER.  We don't plan to write a
bunch of individual errata.

> 
> Henry and Simon will be co-editors of the AssocSS 2nd Edition.

ACTION to Henry and Simon:  Produce a draft of the AssocSS 2nd Ed PER.

> 
> 
> 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/2009Jul/0016
> 
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 16:03:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 July 2009 16:03:54 GMT