Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2004 November 17

Attendees
---------
Paul 
Glenn
Arnaud
Dmitry  xx:06
Leonid
Richard
Philippe
Daniel 
François off at xx:20

[8 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 12]

Regrets
------- 
Norm
Henry
Sandra
JohnC

Absent organizations
--------------------
Microsoft
NIST (with regrets)
Lew Shannon
John Cowan (with regrets)

Next telcon is next week (Nov 24th); Paul sends regrets;
Norm will chair.

> 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).

In last week's minutes, re. XForms use of xml-stylesheet PI,
Paul had recorded:

> Everyone on the call felt that use of the xml-stylesheet
> here was wrong.  

But JohnC, in fact, disagrees with this characterization, 
saying:

  On the contrary; I thought it was correct.

  > Most of us are certainly opposed to them using
  > type="application/xml".

  I think it is the Right Thing....

For the full text of John's email, see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0037

With this correction, the minutes are Accepted.

> 
> 1.5. 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
> 
> The meeting will be held in the Hyatt Harborside, Boston:
>      http://harborside.hyatt.com/property/index.jhtml

The TAG has asked if we wish to have any f2f time with them
during the Technical Plenary week.

Maybe issues with the XML Profile.

Maybe the XForms xml-stylesheet PI issue.

> 
> 2. Forms WG Note on xml-stylesheet and XForms.
> 
> See the draft Working Group Note at
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group/Drafts/stylesheet-pi

(no longer also in TR space).

> See the thread starting at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2004OctDec/0022
> especially Norm's message at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2004OctDec/0030
> 
> Many of us on the call felt that use of the xml-stylesheet
> here was wrong.  We had some discussion.
> 
> Most of us are certainly opposed to them using 
> type="application/xml". 

See also JohnC's comments at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0037
where he argues it is reasonable to treat this as a stylesheet
and raises the issue on how to recognize things via the MIME type.

> Arnaud would like to know more about the motivation and
> why they are using the xml-stylesheet PI instead of
> something else.
> 
> ACTION to Paul:  Request further info from the Forms WG.

Done, only yesterday, and no responses yet:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2004OctDec/0138

Richard initially agreed with Norm's comment, but now he feels
that what JohnC said makes some sense.

We'll wait a week for a response from Forms WG and hope with
that and Norm and JohnC we can make some progress on this
topic next week.

> 
> 3.  XLink erratum/update.
> 
> Norm has suggested a possible update to XLink at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0033
> where we say that an element that has an xlink:href but 
> does not have an xlink:type should be treated as if it
> had a "simple" link type.

Several of us have expressed support for this idea,
and no one objects.

We believe we could make this change via the PER route.

XLink is not in any WG's charter.  PLH agrees that, if it
would be in anyone's charter, it would be in XML Core.
He suggests we take this to the XML CG.  He also wonders
about the patent policy.

ACTION to PLH:  Investigate the charter and patent issue 
as well as confirming that we can use the PER route (e.g., 
XLink 1.0, 2nd Ed.).

ACTION to Paul:  Raise this issue with the XML CG.

> 
> 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 133 CDATA sections, PIs and Comments in Mixed and ANY 
> content models
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> CONSENSUS to approve and publish.
> ACTION to Francois:  Update PE and Errata documents for PE 133.

Done.

> PE 134 Non-ascii chars in XML/text declaration
> ----------------------------------------------
> The xml-editor list received a comment at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2004OctDec/0003
> which is presumably asking the same question asked earlier at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2003OctDec/0048
> and which the commenter claims we never answered satisfactorily.
> 
> There is an updated proposed resolution at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/02/proposed-xml10-3e-and-xml11-errata#PE134
> and this is in countdown until this week's telcon.

CONSENSUS to approve for publication.

ACTION to Francois:  Update PE and Errata documents for PE 134.

> 
> PE132 Validity of default attribute values (again)
> --------------------------------------------------
> This comes down to the wording in section 3.3.2 where we say
> "only the syntactic constraints of the type are required here"
> but then we argued about what "syntactic" means.
> 
> CONSENSUS:  It is a violation of the Attribute Default Legal VC 
> for the default value not to be one of those specified in the
> enumerated list for enumerated type attributes.
> 
> John proposed new language for "Validity constraint: 
> Attribute Default Legal" to solve the ambiguity here at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0001
> and that is in countdown until this week's telcon.

CONSENSUS to approve for publication.

ACTION to Francois:  Update PE and Errata documents for PE 132.

> 
> 5. Namespaces in XML.
> 
>   Ongoing ACTION to Richard:  Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed.
> 
> Makoto thinks we should fold all our errata into an NS1.0 2nd Ed,
> but we should not fold in our other editorial changes from 1.1
> into 1.0 2nd Ed.  He sent his comments at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2004Nov/0004
> wherein he objected to our folding editorial changes that were not
> processed as errata back from 1.1 into 1.0.
> 
> ACTION to Paul:  Check with W3C folks about whether we can
> fold editorial errata from 1.1 back into 1.0 2nd Ed.

Done, and our plan is acceptable:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0041

> 
> 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.  
> 
> Henry now needs to organize a Rec call in the next week
> or so.  He thinks the call should be mostly just a formality.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Take XInclude to Rec.

Philippe and Henry are working on this.

Do we have anything to do to the PR to produce the Rec?

No, just the document head stuff (including Status).

Do we want to issue a press release?  Yes, we decide.
And maybe testimonials if we get some.

ACTION to Philippe:  Organize a plan to take XInclude to 
Rec, including a press release, testimonials, etc.  Send
testimonial info to the WG.

We will shoot for a Dec 8th publication date (though that
can only be tentative, since it depends on the Comm team).

> Sandra has sent new test suite stuff to Henry.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Update the test suite home page with
> what Sandra sent to you.

ACTION continued.

> 
> 7. xml:id.
> 
> Our Last Call of xml:id is published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/

Nothing to discuss here until we receive comments.

> 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 (though no
> immediate need this week).

We also will need an issues list for the Last Call,
though we don't need it until mid-December.

> Norm announced he had a sax filter implementation of xml:id:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Oct/0042
> 
> 
> 8.  XML Profile.  The TAG (via Norm) asks about progress on this:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Sep/0004
> 
> We last talked about this at the March 2004 f2f:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/02/xml-f2f-20040301-minutes#profile

No discussion on this topic until we hear back from the TAG.

> Norm continues to recommend that we make a profile that is the 
> same as XML 1.1 except to change the bnf so that you can't have 
> any sort of doctype decl.
> 
> Norm suggests we generate a WG Note outlining the subset.
> 
> Glenn asks about how this might affect the idea of a
> compliant XML processor.  Specifically, a processor that
> only processes this subset is not a compliant XML processor.
> 
> SOAP also forbids PIs, but we believe they can live with a 
> subset with PIs.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Send email summarizing his suggested plan
> (though the ACTION below to check with the TAG should probably
> come first).
> 
> Norm started a TAG discussion at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Oct/0059
> but reached no denouement.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Check with the TAG that this is something
> they still want to see worked on.

ACTION continued.

> The next step would seem to be to write a summary of the 
> plan and send it out and see if it makes people happy.
> We should be sure to include at least the TAG, SOAP, the
> XML CG.
> 
> 
> [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/2004Nov/0032
> [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
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2004 17:01:18 UTC