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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2011 May 4

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 11:55:26 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA02B6FBB9@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees
---------
Paul 
Norm
John 
Henry
Liam
Jirka

[6 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 9]

Regrets
-------
Daniel
Mohamed

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


We are CANCELLING the telcon of May 18.

Our next telcon will be June 1.


> 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
> 
> 
> Name-escaping spec
> ------------------
> Henry sent email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Mar/0018
> asking if we should consider producing a WG Note recommending
> an escaping scheme for turning (mostly) arbitrary strings into
> XML names as a Best Practice.
> 

Henry just noticed a fourth implementation of escaping into XML names.

But Henry still thinks we should probably just drop this since
it's unlikely anyone would listen to us--everyone likes their own.

No one disagreed with dropping this.

> 
> XML Security specs
> ------------------
> The XML Security WG has asked the XML Core WG to review its
> upcoming specs as referenced below, especially:
> 
> Canonical XML Version 2.0,
> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/c14n-20/
> 
> XML Signature Syntax and Processing Version 2.0,
> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-20/
> 
> ACTION to Jirka, Norm:  Review the XML Security specs.
> 

ACTION to Jirka, Norm continued.

> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Furthermore, IRIBis is not moving to RFC quickly.  So we're not
> sure what we should do about issuing new editions.
> 
> Recent email from Larry Masinter (one of the authors of IRIbis) at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Mar/0022
> doesn't give a time line for IRIBis at this point.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Ping Larry Masinter (one of the authors of
> IRIbis) for the latest on the IRIbis schedule.
> 

ACTION to Henry continued.

> 
> 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/
> 
> ACTION to Henry: Update the Errata document at
> http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/errata
> 

Done.

> 
> 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
> 
> ACTION to John:  Review the latest xml-model spec at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2011/04/xml-model/xml-model-diff.htm
> 
> Jirka will present our disposition of comments to ISO and
> find out whether they need to do another ballot or not.
> 
> ACTION to Jirka:  Find out what the next steps will be
> for ISO's progression of the XML Model spec.
> 
> Jirka, Norm suggest we wait a month or two to see if we need
> to do anything else before we publish it as a new edition.
> 
> John suggests we publish it now.  Paul isn't sure.
> 
> ACTION to Paul:  Consider publishing a new edition of
> our xml-model WG Note (probably no earlier than the
> May 10 timeframe).
> 

Jirka hasn't heard back yet about our resolutions of
comments or whether ISO will need to do another ballot.

We will wait until our next telcon (June 1) to see what
is the latest status with ISO and perhaps decide to publish
a new editor of our WG Note then.

> 
> 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/2011Apr/0027
> 
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 15:56:12 UTC

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