- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:02:25 -0400
- To: "XML Core WG" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Paul Glenn Jonathan xx:10 Anjana Norm Leonid Richard Philippe Lew Daniel xx:08 François [10 organizations (10 with proxies) present out of 12] Regrets ------- Henry John Absent organizations -------------------- NIST John Cowan (with regrets) > 1. Accepting the minutes from the last two telcons [3] and > the current task status [2] (have any questions, comments, > or corrections ready by the beginning of the call). Accepted. > 2. Miscellaneous administrivia. > > > 3. Problem with xml:space in the Schema document for the XML namespace > > Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org> sent us email on this at: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Jul/0019 > > Norm thinks Mimasa is correct; we should not provide a default for > xml:space. Glenn agrees. Richard agrees. > > But Henry questioned our decision. Norm and Henry discussed it > a bit; Richard and Glenn were absent. > > Henry found that Mimasa was not correct about not being able > to make xml:space fixed. Henry replied at: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Aug/0013 > > But it remains open whether we should change the default (or > change the fact that it is defaulted). > > ACTION to Henry: Check his schema collection to see if anyone > is using xml:space in an interesting way and see if this leads > us to want to change the current declaration of xml:space. Ongoing. > 4. XML errata. The published 1.0 errata document is [8], the > published 1.1 errata document is [9], and the NEW PUBLIC > Potential Errata (PE) document is [7]. > > PE 130 Missing paren in section 5.2 in XML 1.1 > ---------------------------------------------- > Editorial. We should add the missing paren (was in 3rd Ed). > > PE 131 Space or S in XML decl. > ------------------------------ > Commentor says we use Space in the XML decl, but S elsewhere. > > Actually, XML decl is (correctly) using S, and S is just the > same as in > XML 1.0. > > So the bug is that in SDDecl, it refers to x#20+ instead S: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml11-20040204/#NT-SDDecl > > We had CONSENSUS this was an editorial oversight, and that we should > change x#20+ to S in the SDDecl production. > > ACTION to Francois: Process both PEs as Errata as described above. Done. > 5. Namespaces in XML. > > ACTION to Richard: Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed. > > > 6. Xinclude CR was published April 13 at: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-xinclude-20040413 > The updated test suite cover page is at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/XInclude/ > > The PR-ready draft is at: > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/07/PR-xinclude/ > > The public DoC (aka latest issues list) is at: > http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/07/ExIT-xinclude/issues.html > > We discussed the details of this document a bit and decided > that we just had to touch on the "Reviewer reply unaddressed" > ones, xi-2 and xi-12. > > xi-2 : Syntactically incorrect IRIs in href attributes > ------------------------------------------------------ > We decided to leave IRI validation up to the implementation. > ERH objects to doing so, but Daniel's implementation is a > case in point where IRI validation is not feasible. > > So the WG reconfirms our previous decision. > > xi-12 : xml:lang implementation report > -------------------------------------- > ERH would prefer that we drop the language property from > xinclude processing. Specifically: > I see no need to introduce a new property for the element > information item to have the desired effect. It would be > much simpler and more consistent with existing specs and > APIs to define this purely in terms of attributes. > > The WG's understanding of the request from I18N and the TAG > in this area leads us to reconfirm our previous decision. > > ACTION to Jonathan: Augment the DoC to point to our > reconfirmations above. Ongoing. > At > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Jul/0025 > Richard had sent a format for submitting test reports and an XSLT > to convert the report to an HTML page. He also included his actual > results. > > Richard says he also has Elliotte's results. Richard, how do > they look? Richard put up results for ERH and himself: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/08/xinclude-implementation/report.html > We still need implementation feedback from Daniel. > > ACTION to DV: Provide a table giving results (using > Richard's files) of > running the test suite on your implementation. ACTION continued. > ACTION to Paul: Write a PR request once we are ready to exit CR. Done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Aug/0022 IPR ptr should be http://www.w3.org/2002/08/xmlcore-IPR-statements We don't have any tests for xml:lang, so we don't know if anyone implemented it, but neither Richard nor DV has implemented it. We're not sure if ERH has--we'll need to ask. ACTION to Richard: Add a test for xml:lang to the test suite. ACTION to Paul: Send email to ERH asking about his implementation and xml:lang and accept/accept-language headers. ACTION to DV: Implement xml:lang. ACTION to Jonathan/Norm: Generate a diff. ACTION to Paul: Update status section, pubrules, etc. > 7. xml:id. > > We should say that the values of xml:id must be > Names according to the XML version of the document. > > ACTION: xml:id editors to update the draft to allow XML 1.0 and XML > 1.1 Names as appropriate. > > Relaxing the constraint that there be one ID per element. > --------------------------------------------------------- > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2004Apr/0012 > > We want to make sure that the xml:id spec is agnostic wrt whether > there is more than one thing of type id on one elemnt, as this is > a property of the validation mechanism. > > Currently, the spec says nothing in this regard, so it is, in fact, > agnostic. Therefore, we have no action. > > So the reply to the comment is that the xml:id spec has no such > constraint, so there is nothing to relax. > > ACTION to DoC maintainer: Record this resolution and reply to > the commentor. > > ACTION to Norm: Raise a new issue about whether we need to fix > the references property as far as the behavior when no xml:id > declaration is available. > > Henry points out that there is no mention of [references] in xml:id, > but there probably should be. > > ERH asking for something simpler. > --------------------------------- > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2004Apr/0015 > > We have thought about this a lot and can't think of anything > simpler that works. We need to work through the infoset, and > we believe this is simpler than enumerating the behavior of > all existing APIs and interfaces. > > Norm had a suggested rewording to simplify the spec (collapsing > section 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and/or making them non-normative appendices). > > ACTION to Norm: Produce such a draft after getting the latest > sources from Daniel. > > Norm has collected the xml:id issues at: > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xmlid/issues.xml and put a new version of the draft at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xmlid/xml-id.html P3P/EPAL Privacy ---------------- Commentor seems to misunderstand the spec, as we cannot see what it has to do with privacy. CONSENSUS that no action is required. ID Strictness ------------- Commentor figures that non-validating parsers shouldn't have to check for xml:id validity. Currently, conformance to xml:id does require non-validating parsers to check for xml:id validity; of course, no parser is required to conform to xml:id. We discussed this for some time. ACTION to Richard: Send email outlining our options. Relies on infoset ----------------- [didn't get here] > > [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/2004Aug/0014 > [7] > http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/02/proposed-xml10-3e-and-xml11-errata.html > [8] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata > [9] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V11-1e-errata > [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2004AprJun/0058.html > >
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 16:04:17 UTC