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

Re: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 June 2

From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:44:54 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0906020744k25db03a9he099ddb4f2aee23d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Paul,

You probably mean "Wednesday, June **3**"

Mohamed

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

>
> We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday,
> June 2, from
>          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
>          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
>          15:00-16:00 UTC
>          16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
>          17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
> on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#.
> We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 .
>
> See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents
> and other information.  If you have additions to the agenda, please
> email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon.
>
> Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and
> completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it
> at the beginning of the call.
>
>
> Paul send regrets--Norm will chair.
>
>
> Agenda
> ======
> 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).
>
>
> 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 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
>
> We decided to add a note; Paul sent draft wording at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0019
>
> I18N came back with some modifications at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0023
>
> JohnC was okay with the I18N proposal.
>
> Paul made a reply at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0025
>
> I'd really like to hear from others on this, especially Richard/Henry
> and Glenn (as well as others).
>
> -----
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> ACTION to Henry:  Publish NPE29 as an erratum and move forward
> toward producing NS 1.0 3rd Edition.
>
>
> 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.
>
> ----
>
> 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.
>
> Can someone remind us what this is about?  What exactly is the question?
> Is it that it should be defaulted but isn't, or is shouldn't be
> defaulted but it is?  And on which element?  And in which DTD/XSD?
>
> And what's the answer to the question?
>
> ----
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> ----
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> Henry sent email giving Saxon behavior in various erroneous cases at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0025
>
> Paul sent email with suggested resolutions at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0029
> and there has been some follow-up email.
>
> I believe the email exchange to date--mostly between Simon and
> myself--covers all the open issues on the Assoc Stylesheet spec.
>
> At this point, it is necessary for the rest of the WG to review
> the emails and take a stand on things.
>
> Specifically, there are several places where we need to decide
> what will be MUSTs and what will be SHOULDs.  Of course, the
> rest of the decisions need to be reviewed and approved also.
>
> ACTION to everyone besides Simon and Paul:  Review the latest
> xml-stylesheet email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0029
> and followups and indicate preferences for 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/2009May/0010
>
>
>


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 14:45:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 14:45:33 GMT