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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 June 17

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:04:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020FF8B959@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:05:50 GMT