Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2004 October 20

Attendees
---------
Paul 
Glenn  xx:26
Sandra
Dmitry
Norm
Leonid
Henry 
Daniel
François 
Lew

[9 organizations (10 with proxies) present out of 12]

Regrets
------- 
Richard, proxy to Henry (or the chair)

Absent organizations
--------------------
Microsoft
U of Edinburgh, with regrets, proxy to Henry
John Cowan

> 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
> 
> The meeting will be held in the Hyatt Harborside, Boston:
>      http://harborside.hyatt.com/property/index.jhtml
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> CONSENSUS to remove the default for xml:space from the schema
> for the xml namespace.
> 
> Henry drafted a new schema and send it to the XML Core list:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Oct/0007
> 
> Henry's suggested new schema includes xml:id.  Are we anticipating
> too much here?
> 
> Henry and DV think it's fine.  Norm too.  What about others?
> 
> Barring new comments to the contrary, we will approve the change
> this week.

CONSENSUS to go with Henry's latest suggestion.

ACTION to Henry:  Update the namespace schema.

> 
> 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]. 
> 
> Glenn has raised a question at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Sep/0080
> about the wording for the ANY and mixed content models and whether
> they allow cdata sections and/or comments and PIs.
> 
> All on the phone (and Francois in previous email) agree that we meant
> to allows cdata sections and PIs and comments in these models.
> 
> Glenn proposed corrected wording at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Oct/0004
> 
> We had CONSENSUS to go with Glenn's words (with Paul's commas).
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Make this a PE and put Glenn's words into 
> a 2 week countdown (starting Oct 13th).

Done, but with slightly modified language and a rationale,
so folks should read it at:
http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/02/proposed-xml10-3e-and-xml11-errata#PE133

> The xml-editor list just 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.
> I see at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-core-wg/2003OctDec/0233
> JohnC suggested:
> 
>   8) NEL issue can be bypassed by using different transcoding
>      conventions.  See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2003OctDec/0048.html .
> 
>   Recommendation:  Reject.  Special code pages for XML are 
>   undesirable, 
>   and older mainframe tools can't cope with them anyway.
> 
> I cannot find any response to commentor, DOC for the XML 1.1 
> PR (beyond this email) or other follow up.
> 
> I suggest we need to make this latest comment a PE and be sure to
> process it carefully to document whatever decision we take.
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Make xml-editor/2004OctDec/0003 a PE.

Done, PE 134.

CONSENSUS to explain that the paragraph about "characters #x85 
and #x2028" is only about the XML declaration, and the problem
is that one hasn't yet processed the encoding declaration, so
we don't want to complicate issues by allowing these characters 
here.  CONSENSUS to make no change to the spec.

ACTION to Francois:  Write a proposed response and put into countdown.

> 
> 5. Namespaces in XML.
> 
>   ACTION to Richard:  Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed.
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
>    Please be sure your AC reps vote on it by October 29.
> 
> Sandra has added ERH's tests to the XInclude Test Suite.
> 
> Check on status of recently added ERH tests (I gather they
> are in CVS, but not in the tar or zip, but maybe I'm mistaken).

They are in CVS, but we will wait a few weeks to update the
tar and zip.

> 
> 7. xml:id.
> 
> Norm has collected the xml:id issues, now (public) at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xml-id/wd-status/status-report.html
> [Not quite up to date as of the writing of this agenda, but
> all issues are closed.]
> 
> Norm just put a new draft (2004 October 15) up at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xmlid/xml-id.html
> It presumably reflects all our decisions.  READ IT!

No comments from those on the call.

Makoto sent some email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Oct/0015
and Norm replied at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Oct/0018

Makoto's main concern seems to be wondering about possible
differences between DTD processing and Schema processing.

Norm felt the current draft addressed this sufficiently,
but he wondered if we should add some kind of note making
it clearer--an xml:id processor is expected rec to id atr named cml:id 
that sat this spec as ids using either infoset or psvi props as appropriate 
to the implementation.

CONSENSUS for Norm to add such a note and produce a new draft.

> If the WG approves, we could consider taking it to Last Call.
> What do members think?

We will plan to approve for publication as a LC draft next week.

We will shoot for Nov 2 for the pubdate, Oct 28-29 for the request,
2004 Dec 13 end of LC period.

> 
> 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 probably at the March 2004 f2f.

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.

We don't know if this would be a new Recommendation or what.
Norm suggests 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.

ACTION to Norm:  Check with the TAG that this is something
they still want to see worked on.

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/2004Oct/0009
> [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, 20 October 2004 15:58:21 UTC