W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > June 2011

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2011 June 29

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:57:37 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA031C030F@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees
---------
Paul 
Norm
Henry
John 

[4 organizations (5 with proxies) present out of 9]

Regrets
-------
Liam
Jirka
Daniel

Absent organizations
--------------------
IBM
Innovimax
W3C (with regrets)
Jirka Kosek (with regrets)
Daniel Veillard (with regrets, proxy to the chair)


Our next telcon will be July 13.  


> 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 week
> ---------
> TPAC will be 31 October through 4 November 2011 in Santa Clara
> California.  I think we should plan to have a f2f during this
> week: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/ - Meeting Overview page.
> 
> Likely attendance:
> 
> Probably will:  Paul, Norm, Henry, Liam
> Maybe:  Mohamed
> Most likely won't:  John, Daniel, Jirka, Glenn
> 
> 
> XML Signature review
> --------------------
> Jirka did a review that we sent in.  We are now being asked
> whether we accept one of the resolutions.  See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Jun/0008
> 

The WG agrees with the resolution.

ACTION to Paul:  Send XML Sig our approval of the resolution of
that issue.

Done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Jun/0013

> 
> XProc WG question about xml:base
> --------------------------------
> The XML Processing Model WG has asked us to consider whether
> we can say anything about what it means to make dynamic changes
> to xml:base.  (For example, what should happen when some script
> changes xml:base on a document in a browser.)
> 
> Henry and Norm will elaborate on our next telcon.
> 

Henry started to explain, and then we got a bit lost in the weeds.
John does think there is something worth discussing.

The XProc WG will discuss this again and come back to the XML Core
as necessary.

> 
> 3.  XML 1.0--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-errata
> 
> We are creating an XML 1.0 6th Edition and XML 1.1 3rd (or
> perhaps 6th) Edition.
> 
> ACTION to John:  Update the XML sources for XML 1.0 and 1.1
> to reflect any errata and the LEIRI reference.
> 
> 
> 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/

Henry has made some progress, but continues work.

> 
> 
> 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
> 
> We had planned to issue the following spec editions referencing
LEIRIs:
> 
> * XML 1.0 6th Edition
> * XML 1.1 3rd Edition
> * XInclude 3rd Edition
> 
> John wonders if we should call the next edition of XML 1.1
> the 6th Edition to match the XML 1.0 spec.  (No decision yet.)
> 
> We decided not to touch XLink 1.0.  XLink 1.1 is already leirified.
> 
> John will update the XML sources for XML 1.0 and 1.1.
> 
> Paul will update the Xinclude source.
> 
> Paul, Norm, and Liam are responsible for dealing with pubrules
> and other administrivia.
> 
> Our LEIRI WG Note says:
> 
>  When [IRIbis is published as an RFC], this specification will be
>  re-issued to reference it in place of the extracts given below.
> 
> We are concerned that the XML specs would be normatively referencing
> an RFC through a (non-normative) WG Note, so we're not sure what we
> want to do here.
> 
> There was some TAG email about IRIbis that Paul forwarded at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011May/0019
> 
> Henry plans to ask TAG about what XML Core should do in this
> situation.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Try to find out more about the status of IRIbis.
> 

IETF's IRIbis WG has a new chair, and they are trying to work with
the HTML WG to get the latter to let the former define IRIs.

So Henry suggests that the XML Core WG waits a bit longer.

One of the holdups is that IRIbis requires percent encoding IRIs
in unicode whereas HTML encodes in the encoding of the current page.
This only arises in the query string parameters in a get.

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 10.  XInclude 3rd Ed--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude
> 
> We are creating an XInclude 3rd Edition.
> 
> ACTION to Paul:  Update the XML sources for Xinclude to reflect
> any errata and the LEIRI reference.
> 
> 
> 11.  Associating Stylesheets.
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-ss
> 
> AssocSS 2nd Ed is now a Recommendation at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xml-stylesheet-20101028/
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> The ISO ballet has ended.  Some of the comments led us to
> tweak our Note.
> 
> Paul prepared an updated draft of the WG Note at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2011/04/xml-model/xml-model-diff.htm
> 
> The WG had CONSENSUS to publish XML Model 2nd Ed whose draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2011/04/xml-model/xml-model-diff.htm
> 
> ACTION to Paul:  Publish XML Model 2nd Ed WG Note.
> 

ACTION to Paul continued.

> 
> 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/2011Jun/0007
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 15:58:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:43 UTC