W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > August 2010

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 August 11

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:00:01 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA947B52@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
August 11, from
          08:30-09:00 Pacific time aka
          11:30-12:00 Eastern time aka
          15:30-16:00 UTC 
          16:30-17:00 in Ireland and the UK  
          17:30-18:00 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.

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.

TPAC Nov 1-5 in Lyons, France
Paul indicated that XML Core tentatively plans to have a f2f 
at TPAC, and we are currently scheduled for Monday/Tuesday
1-2 November 2010.

Likely: Henry, Mohamed, Liam, Daniel
Unlikely: Glenn, Paul, Simon, Norm, John

Registration is now open; see http://www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/

TAG concern wrt 3023bis, +xml media types and fragids
Henry sent email about this at

3023bis says that the +xml implies that the resource is suitable for 
processing by generic xml processors.  And it says that such xml
processors should handle fragment ids.  Specifically, handling the
fragment identifiers in an rdf+xml document is not something that a 
generic xml processor could do.

The TAG was leaning toward removing the statement from 3023bis that
says that fragid syntax and semantics is something that any generic
xml processor can handle in a +xml resource.  Noah sent email and
Norm has replied.  See the thread at

Somewhat related, Henry sent email about XML fragid interpretation at

Norm and John prefer to allow RDF (and others) to be an exception,
but the rule is that the default treatment is as specified in
XPointer Framework.

Norm and John (among others) weighed in; see the thread at

Norm's latest (as of July 26, posted July 14) is at

We've seen no progress on this since July 14.

We'll ask Henry for a TAG status on this on August 11.

3.  XML 1.0--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-errata

4.  XML Test Suite.

See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-test-suite

ACTION to Henry:  Construct a test case for the XML test suite 
issues raised by Frans Englich:

5.  Namespaces in XML 1.0/1.1--see
   and http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#ns1.1.

6.  LEIRIs--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#leiri

7.  xml:id--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-id

8.  XML Base 2nd Ed--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-base

9.  XLink 1.1--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xlink1.1

Mohamed asked if xlink should point to xlink11; see

10.  XInclude 3rd Ed--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude

11.  Associating Stylesheets.

See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-ss

Our latest public draft is at

The transition request for AssocSS is at

We had an unsuccessful transition call last week.  See

The editors drafted new wording for Section 2 Conformance; see

Paul sent email to Daniel Glazman and TimBL requesting comment at
Daniel commented at

Liam talked to TimBL July 1 and sent some email at
explaining what we should do next. 

At our telcon of July 28, after some discussion and a vote,
the WG agreed to add the following paragraph verbatim 
as a second paragraph to the Note in section 2:

 At the time of edition 1 (1999) the meaning of these
 p-attributes was not well specified, and at the time
 of edition 2 (2010) there is low interoperability in
 the values between implementations; future work may
 clarify this.

ACTION to the editors (Henry upon his return?):  Update 
the 20 April 2010 draft PER of AssocSS as follows:

1.  Add the above quoted paragraph verbatim as a second
    paragraph to the Note in section 2.

2.  Change the pub dates (in the subtitle, this version
    URL [both published and the href], and anywhere else
    as necessary) to 19 August 2010.

3.  Change the end review date in the SotD to 24 September 2010.

Then regenerate both the HTML and the diff-marked HTML.

ACTION to Paul (once there is an updated draft):  Send email 
to TimBL and DanielG pointing to the latest draft and requesting 

ACTION to Liam:  Do whatever is necessary to get AssocSS 
out as PER (asking Paul for a pub request if necessary).

12.  xml-model

See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-schemas

This has been published as a WG Note at

XML Model is being balloted by SC34 until the ? of August. 
In the middle of September SC34 will have a face-to-face meeting 
where they will discuss comments received during the ballot.

Jirka will bring SC34 comments, concerns, and proposed resolutions
back to XML Core WG in the second half of September. 


[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/2010Jul/0041
Received on Monday, 9 August 2010 14:01:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:42 UTC