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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 September 8

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 10:53:04 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DAC588A6@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
September 8, 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.

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.

TPAC Nov 1-5 in Lyons, France
-----------------------------
It now looks like there will be no official XML Core WG
meeting in Lyons.  Those on the WG who are there are free
to meet informally, of course.  If you are planning to
attend, be sure to register.

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

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

We asked Ian about our options, and he pointed us to
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/
as an example of the kind of thing we could add to XLink 1.0.
Several WG members expressed support for doing something like
that.  We should make a decision during this telcon.


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

DanielG expressed acceptance of that draft at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Aug/0002

The WG decided in an email vote at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Aug/thread#ms
g30
to request transition to PER.

Henry has updated the draft at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/08/xml-stylesheet/	

Paul sent in a new transition request at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Sep/0011

ACTION to Liam:  Do whatever is necessary to get AssocSS out as PER.


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/

At
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Aug/0046
Jirka indicated the completion of a successful SC34 ballot of
XML Model.  The ISO process continues, but looks promising.

We will plan to update our WG Note to reference the ISO spec
once it is officially available.


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/2010Aug/0007
Received on Monday, 6 September 2010 14:53:34 UTC

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