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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 August 11

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:53:35 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA948886@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Attendees
---------
 Norm
 Paul 
 Liam
 Mohamed
 Henry
 John 

[6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------
Glenn
Daniel
Simon

Absent organizations
--------------------
IBM (with regrets)
Jirka Kosek 
Daniel Veillard (with regrets)
Opera (with regrets)


> 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.
> 
> 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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jun/0006
> 
> 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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/thread.html#msg125
> 
> Somewhat related, Henry sent email about XML fragid interpretation at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jun/0025
> 
> 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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/thread.html#msg125
> and
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jul/thread.html#msg0
> 
> Norm's latest (as of July 26, posted July 14) is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jul/0020
> 
> We've seen no progress on this since July 14.
> 
> We'll ask Henry for a TAG status on this on August 11.

Per Noah's email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Aug/0003
there will be no new status until September.


> 
> 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:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-testsuite/2007Mar/
> 
> 
> 5.  Namespaces in XML 1.0/1.1--see
>    http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#ns1.0
>    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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Aug/0003
> 

Norm agrees that the latest version of xlink should be xlink11.

John points out that anyone pointing to XLink 1.0 with a
version-less name, they will now be pointing to XLink 1.1.

Henry believes that Ian will agree with having only 1.1
have a versionless dateless and having "xlink" point to 1.1.

ACTION to Paul:  Send Ian email pointing out that "xlink"
should now point to the XLink 1.1 spec.

> 
> 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
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/04/xml-stylesheet/
> 
> The transition request for AssocSS is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Apr/0034
> 
> We had an unsuccessful transition call last week.  See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Apr/0057
> 
> The editors drafted new wording for Section 2 Conformance; see
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/05/xml-stylesheet/
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/05/xml-stylesheet/diff.html
> 
> Paul sent email to Daniel Glazman and TimBL requesting comment at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010May/0012
> Daniel commented at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Aug/0002
> 
> Liam talked to TimBL July 1 and sent some email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jul/0002
> 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
> acceptance.
> 

Action rescinded.  Since DanielG has sent acceptance, we
decided we didn't need to ask again, so we once we have
a new draft, we will ask Liam to take it to PER.

> 
> 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
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-xml-model-20100415/
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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/2010Jul/0041
> 
Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 15:54:11 UTC

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