Re: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 April 13

Unfortunately, I have a conflict today. Proxy to the chair. Dmitry

--- Original Message ---
> 
> 
> We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
> April 13, from
>           08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
>           11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
>           15:00-16:00 UTC
>           16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
>           17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
> on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#.
> We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 .
> 
> See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current
> documents
> and other information.  If you have additions to the agenda,
> please
> email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon.
> 
> Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy
> and
> completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept
> it
> at the beginning of the call.
> 
> Agenda
> ======
> 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).
> 
> 
> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 
> The new XML Core WG charter has been approved.
> The Call for Participation is out, and everyone on the WG
> has to have their AC rep submit their name as a member in
> the rechartered WG within the next 45 days:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0006
> 
> The WG reviewed the Binary XML documents:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xbc-measurement-20050224/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xbc-properties-20050224/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xbc-use-cases-20050224/ 
> 
> Norm sent some comments:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0046
> 
> Dmitry sent his comments at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0009
> 
> Lew sent his comments at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0007
> 
> Both Lew and Dmitry think Binary XML is an important
> issue and are mostly positive about doing something
> in this area.
> 
> Norm reviewed some of the documents and had some
> serious problems with the presentation of some of
> the documents as well as with some of the technical
> comments.  He is not convinced that it makes sense
> to standardize binary XML at this point.
> 
> Since the Binary WG is closed, our comments would mostly
> be for whatever effort comes next, and since we don't
> have strong consensus comments, I propose we don't try
> to send in anything as a WG comment at this time.
> 
> Richard reviewed the 
> XPath 2.0/XQuery 1.0 Data Model document that is at:  
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xpath-datamodel-20050211/
> Richard's review is at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0014
> 
> 
> 3.  XLink update.
> 
> Our WG Note "Extending XLink 1.0" has been published:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xlink10-ext-20050127/
> 
> A charter modification has gone to the AC:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2005JanMar/0036
> 
> While we aren't quite chartered for this yet, we did
> discuss it some at our f2f:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#xlink
> 
> Norm made a pass at XLink 1.1 at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/
> with a diff (from 1.0) at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/Overview-diff.html
> 
> 
> 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]. 
> 
> See the discussion of IRIs and the "MAY" paragraph
> under item 5. Namespaces in XML below (which actually
> occurred during our f2f under the XLink discussion).
> 
> We need to make some IRI related errata to XML 1.0 
> and 1.1 (for system ids). 
> 
> Note this does NOT mean that we would change the 
> reference to 2396 to now be 3986 because that could
> imply other changes.
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Draft wording for the erratum 
> to XML 1.0 and 1.1 updating the IRI wording (and
> referencing the MAY paragraph).
> 
> We had a question about the XML Test Suite arise; see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0037
> 
> Awaiting response from Richard.
> 
> 
> 5. Namespaces in XML.
> 
> Richard suggested we take NS 1.1 and revert the two 
> substantive changes (IRI and undeclared namespaces) 
> to create NS 1.0 2nd Ed. The WG has consensus to do 
> that, and we got approval from the team to do so.
> 
> Ongoing ACTION to Richard:  Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed.
> 
> We note that the IRI spec is now finished-RFC 3987-so 
> we have to issue an erratum for NS 1.1 for this.  We
> discussed some details of this under the XLink discussion:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#xlink
> Briefly, 3987 does have some wording (the "MAY" paragraph) 
> about what used to be called unwise characters.  For the 
> NS 1.1 erratum, the MAY paragraph doesn't apply since 
> namespace names cannot have the unwise characters.  (The 
> MAY paragraph will be needed for XML 1.* system identifiers.)
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Process an erratum to NS 1.1 to
> refer to RFC 3987: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt
> 
> 
> 6. Xinclude Rec was published 2004 December 30 at:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xinclude-20041220/
> 
> Our XInclude potential errata document is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/proposed-xinclude-errata
> 
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0029
> for the latest status of the open PEs.
> 
> 
> PEX1 Fatal XInclude errors in unactivated fallbacks
> ---------------------------------------------------
> We will add a paragraph to "Section 4.4 Fallback Behavior" 
> about how there are no fatal errors relating to fallback-both
> 
> errors within fallback elements and errors due to the wrong 
> number of fallback elements-unless there is a resource error
> 
> with the xinclude element surround this(these) fallback 
> element(s). We will also add something after the third 
> sentence of section 3.2 to this effect.
> 
> ACTION to ???:  Suggest actual wording.
> 
> 
> PEX2 URI or IRI errors handling
> -------------------------------
> There will be no change to the spec.
> 
> We don't expect implementors of XInclude to implement 
> IRI processing, so whatever ends up happening with 
> respect to IRIs isn't really the fault of the XInclude 
> processor. However, we don't want to license such behavior, 
> so we don't want to change our current wording here. 
> 
> ACTION to ???:  Reply to the commentor.
> 
> 
> PEX3 What is an error (subcase on accept attribute value)
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Can we close this as being a duplicate of PEX7?
> 
> 
> PEX5 XML encoding detection in parse="text"
> -------------------------------------------
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0032
> 
> 
> PEX14 What if encoding is not an EncName?
> -------------------------------------------
> CONSENSUS to leave this as a dup of PEX3 and PEX7.
> 
> 
> PEX15 XPointers with percent escapes: what type of error?
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0033
> 
> 
> 7. xml:id.
> 
> The CR was published (2005 Feb 8) at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-xml-id-20050208/
> 
> The (public) xml:id LC issues is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xml-id/lc-status/status-report.html
> The LC DoC is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id-lc-doc.html
> Our implementation report is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id-implementation.html
> We have a test suite cover page at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xml-id/
> 
> Norm sent some email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0023
> and a sample of his implementation feedback at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id/xmlidfilter-report
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Add a link to the test suite from
> your implementation feedback report.
> 
> ACTION to DV, Richard:  Run your implementation on the 
> test suite and produce some feedback report.
> 
> Elliotte Rusty Harold is running the test suite and
> asking a number of questions we need to answer--see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005Apr/
> 
> Norm provided some answers to ERH's comments:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005Apr/0006
> and 0007, 0008, 0009.
> 
> We discussed changing wording about errors so that an xml-id
> processor doesn't need to report errors *to the application*.
> 
> In Section 6 Errors, we currently say:
> 
>   A violation of the constraints in this specification
>   results in an xml:id error. Such errors are not fatal,
>   but must be reported by the xml:id processor to the
>   application invoking it.
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Suggest some rewording for this and
> pass it by ERH.
> 
> 
> 8.  Associating stylesheets--awaiting TAG action.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Raise this issue at the TAG level
> (or just bring it back to us).
> 
> 
> 9.  absolutivity of [base URI]
>     Norm has asked a question about the absolutivity of [base
> URI]:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Feb/0031
> 
> We discussed this at our f2f:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#base-uri
> 
> We have CONSENSUS that base URIs are always absolute. 
> 
> The last sentence of the first 
> paragraph of section 5.1 of RFC 3986 says "If the base 
> URI is obtained from a URI reference, then that reference 
> must be converted to absolute form and stripped of any 
> fragment component prior to its use as a base URI."
> 
> Since the infoset and xml:base refer to 2396, it's not 
> clear whether the fragment identifier is part of the 
> infoset's [base URI] or not as life stands today. 
> 
> Richard: In 2396, base URIs can have fragment identifiers,
> but this doesn't matter because they aren't used when doing
> absolutization or determining if there is a same document ref.
> 
> In 3986, base URIs don't have fragment ids, and again this 
> doesn't matter for resolution, but it is essential that it
> be stripped off for the determine of whether something is a
> same document reference.
> 
> In the infoset, we do expose the base URI as a property, and
> 
> if we were to switch xml:base and XML itself from 2396 to 
> 3986, the value of the base URI property would be different.
> Richard isn't sure we want to do that.
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Draft a message for Roy et al. and send
> to the XML Core WG for discussion (later, to be sent to
> the uri group and the tag).
> 
> 
> 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/2005Apr/0013
> [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, 13 April 2005 15:12:25 UTC