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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 December 2

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:51:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3021191A2E0@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
 
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
December 2, from
          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
          16:00-17:00 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.

SC 34/WG 1 use of xml-model PI
------------------------------
We had responded to an SC 34/WG1 request to be able to use xml-model
for a PI target.  Our response is at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0011

We received a response at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Oct/0001
to which Paul replied at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Oct/0021

But then Mohamed, as liaison, reported that there would be problems 
with JTC1 writing the spec and then having W3C publish it. 

Paul sent email to SC34 rescinding our agreement to let them
use xml-model until we can figure out how to go about it:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Oct/0039

Henry reports that IJ would be happy to see the WG produce a Note.

Paul wants the WG Note to be the complete spec so that someone
can reference it.

Paul wants to draft the note first as a starting point from which
ISO can write their spec--in coordination with us and as we redraft
our Note to keep it in sync--and then when they have a final spec,
we will finalize our Note with a reference to the ISO spec.

----

3023-bis
--------
A new proposed draft of 3023-bis is at
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html

Paul sent comments on this latest draft at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Nov/0054
They were mostly editorial, but Paul did request the addition of a para:

 Because applications are not required to support schemes other
 than the 'element' scheme, use of other schemes can reduce
 universal interoperability; such use SHOULD be carefully
 considered in each case.

Henry is okay with that addition.

Paul sent email to Chris at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Nov/0121
to request confirmation that Chris has seen these comments and
plans to incorporate them.  No response to date.


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

NS 1.0 3rd Ed PER is at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PER-xml-names-20090806/
and the review was generally successful.  We had a few comments
that we addressed; the DoC is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/10/disposition.html
and the Rec-ready document is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-10-3e.html

The one outstanding issue from Bjoern remains at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2009Oct/0004

The wording in question was in 2nd Ed, so we will file a PE
and consider fixing it in the 4th Ed.

ACTION to Henry:  Re-tell Bjoern our plan to consider this in an
erratum but not change it in this 3rd Ed.

ACTION to Henry:  Record Bjoern's comment as a PE against NS 1.0.

ACTION to Henry:  Take NS 1.0 3rd Ed to Rec.

WG Consensus to take NS 1.0 3rd Ed to Rec despite the one outstanding
objection.


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 

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 has updated the DTDs and sent things to Norm. 

ACTION to Norm:  Update the draft with the correct DTD, XSD, and RNC.

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

Norm created an updated IR at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/ir.html

ACTION to Norm:  Adding a mention of the test suite at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/03/xlink11-tests to the IR.

ACTION to Norm:  Create a diff between 1.0 and the 1.1 PR ready draft.


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

The latest issues document with CONSENSUS resolutions is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm

The latest editor's draft of AssocSS 1.0 2nd Edition is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/09/xml-stylesheet.html
(2009 Nov 27 version).

NOTE:  This is a new version that needs review by the WG!
We should be getting close to being ready for a FPWD.


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/2009Nov/0116
Received on Monday, 30 November 2009 16:53:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:41 UTC