- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:04:51 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- John xx:08 Glenn Mohamed Simon xx:35 Paul Henry, W3C Henry, U of E Daniel [8 organizations (9 with proxies) present out of 11] Regrets ------- Norm, proxy to the chair Richard Absent organizations -------------------- A-SIT MarkLogic (with regrets, proxy to the chair) 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 > > 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> > Consensus to make this an erratum. ACTION to Paul to communicate with Francois about possibly processing this erratum. > ----- > > 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. ACTION to Henry continued. > > > 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. > ACTIONs to Henry continued. > > 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. ACTION to Henry continued. > > --- > > 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 > 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 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? There was some email discussion at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jun/thread.html#msg27 Henry finds the DTD/RelaxNG/XSD fragments throughout the spec unhelpful and would like to remove them (leaving them only in the appendices). There was also discussion about just what simple conformance is: does it require href or not? For example, if something has xlink:type="simple" but no href, it is still a simple link. See also http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xlink11-20080331/#app-reqs-simple But then the definition of simple link at http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xlink11-20080331/#simple-links says it associates exactly two resources, and how can it do that without an href attribute? But 4.1 does say that href is optional in a simple link. We had Norm-less consensus to define simple conformance to require href. ACTION to Henry: Modify the simple conformance XSD to make href required. ACTION to John: Modify the simple conformance RelexNG to make href required. ACTION to Norm: Update the prose in the spec to redefine simple conformance to require href. For example: "...with respect to simple links. In other words, elements..." -> "...with respect to simple links with an explicit xlink:href assignment. In other words, all and only elements..." > > ---- > > 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.html#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.html#msg20 > and weigh in on the issues. Henry and Norm sent some comments. We had some more discussion on the telcon. ACTION to Paul: Compile a list of issues and suggested (or possible) resolutions for some final WG discussion and decision making. > > 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 Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:05:49 UTC