Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2004 August 25

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