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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 June 17

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:12:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020FF11ECE@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
 
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
June 17, 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.

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/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

After some back and forth, the following additional note is in
countdown:

<added-note>
_Unicode_ (rule C06) says that canonically equivalent sequences of
characters ought to be treated as identical. However, XML _parsed
entities_ (including _document entities_) that are canonically
equivalent according to Unicode but which use distinct code point
(character) sequences are considered distinct by XML processors.
Therefore, all XML parsed entities SHOULD be created in a "fully
normalized" form per _[CharMod-Norm]_. Otherwise the user might
unknowingly create canonically equivalent but unequal sequences that
appear identical to the user but which are treated as distinct by XML
processors.

A document can still be well-formed, even if it is not in a normalized
form. XML processors MAY verify that the document being processed is in
a fully-normalized form and report to the application whether it is or
not.
</added-note>

-----

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.ht
ml#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.

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.

Simon and Paul generally agreed on the resolutions except that
Simon would prefer that some SHOULDs become MUSTs.  We need to
have other WG members review the latest email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0029
and followups and the more recent thread at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jun/thread.ht
ml#msg20
and weigh in on the issues.

ACTION to everyone besides Simon and Paul (and accepted by Henry
and Norm):  Review the latest xml-stylesheet email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0029
and followups and the more recent thread at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jun/thread.ht
ml#msg20
and weigh in on the issues.

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/2009Jun/0006
Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 14:13:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 15 June 2009 14:13:37 GMT