- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:44:16 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Paul Glenn Sandra Dmitry Norm Philippe Henry François Lew xx:15 John xx:10 [9 organizations (9 with proxies) present out of 12] Regrets ------- Leonid Richard Daniel Absent organizations -------------------- Microsoft Univ of Edinburgh (with regrets) Daniel Veillard (with regrets) We have CANCELLED the telcons for Dec 22 and 29, so our next call will be January 5th. > 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. > > The next W3C Technical Plenary Week will be 28 February 2005 > through 4 March 2005: > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html > > ACTION: Norm to coordinate a liaison with the TAG. Norm will try to set up a meeting time during the Tech Plen in case we have something to discuss with the TAG by then. > > 3. XLink update. > > Norm posted a draft[10] with diff[11]; there has been > some discussion[12]. > > We will have to make it an XLink 1.1, and we need to make a > charter change. We would either have to have specific > requirements put into the charter, or we'd have to write > a Requirements Document first. > > The XML CG suggested that someone (SVG or XML Core) > write a WG Note that effectively outlines the desired changes > to XLink. Then, we can put through an XML Core WG charter > change that allows us specifically to issue an XLink 1.1 that > implements the changes in the Note. > > Henry thinks the WG Note approach is a good idea. Henry tells us that publishing a WG Note only takes a "polite pre-announcement" to the chairs. We decided to develop a WG Note "Extending XLink 1.0" that lists the changes we suggest to XLink 1.0. ACTION to Norm: Draft such a WG Note. > > 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]. > > PE135: When to check entity WFness according to 4.3.2 > ----------------------------------------------------- > The root of this issue appears to be the WF of entities that are > declared but never referenced. > > Glenn: If we're going to make this clarification, I'm not sure why > internal general entities are the only places where we would do this. > Is this yet another case where the outline of the spec causes to have > statements scattered along one dimension but if someone wants to > gather them together in one section, they're not completely > cross-referenced. This may just be a case where we need to tie the > statements about parsed entities together better. Maybe not enough > things are links. > > ACTION: Glenn to review PE135 and see if he can propose a solution. Glenn sent email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Dec/0016 He suggests we add to 4.3.2 by way of clarification: Only parsed entities that are referenced directly or indirectly within the document are required to be well-formed. ACTION to Francois: Put the above into countdown until Jan 5th. > PE136: XML 1.1 processors accepting XML 1.0 documents > ----------------------------------------------------- > Glenn: In an earlier draft, I think we waffled a bit. And so I think > that we settled on the MUST. > > Some discussion about whether we should change SHOULD to MUST > in 2.8 or > if we should just drop the relevant sentence. > > Norm expresses reservations about leaving the statement about 1.1 > processors accepting 1.0 documents until way down in the document. > > Glenn observes that this may have just been a reminder about > 1.0 vs. 1.1 > because it's been a long time since the discussion of version numbers > began. > > PROPOSED resolution (in COUNTDOWN until Jan 5): Remove the sentence. > > PE137: Improper RFC2119 "MAY" > ----------------------------- > Is the "MAY" in the first paragraph of Section 2 an RFC2119 "MAY" or > just a regular English "may"? > > Tim Bray is correct, we should reword this sentence either > lowercasing the MAY or removing it entirely. > > In addition, the XML document is valid if it meets certain further > constraints. > > PROPOSED resolution (in COUNTDOWN until Jan 5): Replace the sentence > with the above suggested rewording. > > PE138: Further fix to E05 > ------------------------- > Editorial: Fix the title attribute of the link. > > ACTION to Francois: Update PE doc for PE 136, 137, and 138. > > > 5. Namespaces in XML. > > Ongoing ACTION to Richard: Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed. > > Paul checked with W3C folks about whether we can > fold editorial errata from 1.1 back into 1.0 2nd Ed > and our plan is acceptable: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0041 > > Richard pointed out a namespace comment at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2004Dec/0000 > which requests something which is almost a different kind of schema. > > > 6. Xinclude PR was published Sept 30 at: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-xinclude-20040930/ > and announced to the AC at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2004JulSep/0043 > > The AC review closed October 29. > > We are now expecting a Dec 20th publication date. > > Paul has updated status and things; pub-ready files are at: > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/12/REC-xinclude-20041220/ > > Testimonials have been requested. Philippe says that Arbortext and Sun have sent in a testimonial. Henry tells us that U of Edinburgh will be sending in a testimonial. Others are encouraged to do so by midday (Boston time) Friday. > ACTION to Philippe: Work with W3T to publish XInclude. We are publishing on Dec 20th. > Sandra has sent new test suite stuff to Henry. > > ACTION to Henry: Update the test suite home page with what > Sandra sent to you. Done. > Someone from DIWG sent email about XInclude--see > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Dec/0010 > Any thoughts on how to respond? (Feel free to Reply to the > above email before the telcon with any thoughts.) That was the wrong URL; it should have been: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Dec/0009 Please read this email and Reply (including "Rotan Hanrahan" <Rotan.Hanrahan@MobileAware.com>) if you have any thoughts. > It has been brought to my attention that we apparently failed > to look at the public XInclude comments list for comments > received during the PR review which is basically the October > archives for this list: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2004Oct/ > I'm assuming we can treat most of these as errata, but I would > be interested if anyone has a chance to glance at these messages > and let us know if there are any glaring issues. We will handle these comments as potential errata for XInclude. > 7. xml:id. > > Our Last Call of xml:id is published at > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/ > The Last Call review will have ended by this week's telcon. > > The (public) xml:id issues is at: > http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xml-id/wd-status/status-report.html > [Not up to date as of the writing of this agenda, but > all issues are closed.] > > ACTION to Norm: Update the xml:id issues document. > > We also will need an issues list for the Last Call. > > Norm announced he had a sax filter implementation of xml:id: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Oct/0042 Norm produced a LC issues list at http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xml-id/lc-status/status-report.html He will update it to reflect followup email by our next telcon when we will start going through the issues. > > 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/2004Dec/0008 > [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 > [10] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/ > [11] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/diff.html > [12] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0057 > >
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2004 16:44:26 UTC