- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:56:43 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, April 27, 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). DV sends probable regrets--proxy to the chair. 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 by May 20th: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0006 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 There is also an issue about what the types are in the data model: the schema types or another system that is similar. Henry and Richard point out the type hierarchy in this data model spec is not quite the same as in the XML Schema spec. ACTION to Richard: Augment the earlier email with respect to the above issue and send them in as XML Core WG comments. 3. XLink update. Our WG Note "Extending XLink 1.0" has been published: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xlink10-ext-20050127/ Norm's latest editor's draft of XLink 1.1 is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/ Paul has gotten Director's approval for publishing this as a first WD: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0035 Paul sent in the pub request at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2005AprJun/0020 Philippe, Henry, what is the status of this request? 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. Richard drafted wording for the erratum to XML 1.0 and 1.1 updating the IRI wording at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0055 But he points out that he doesn't suggest we make this change until and unless we change the references to 2396 to 3986. Richard suggests we defer this erratum for now. CONSENSUS to defer this erratum for now. ACTION to Francois: Make a PE for this topic and record Richard's email but note that we will defer the resolution of this PE until further notice (e.g., when we change the references from 2396 to 3986). 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 our PE document which is awaiting updating by DV. I believe we have resolved all the XInclude PEs (unless we hear back from commentors). 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 Richard put his implementation report at http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id/rxp-report.html Richard had some questions on Norm's latest test suite. On the last test, Norm fails because XSLT can't do it. Norm gets a space in it that shouldn't be there. When Richard runs it, he gets the empty string for the result. ACTION to Norm: Investigate what should happen on this last test. ACTION to DV: Run your implementation on the test suite and produce some feedback report. 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. Dan Connolly raised a new issue: he wants us to have tests demonstrating xml:id working with CSS (and the DOM, etc.). Norm isn't sure how to test this. It requires a change to CSS implementations. Paul raised this issue at the XML CG. In fact, Dan raised the issue on www-tag: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0079 ACTION to Paul: Touch base with the CSS WG about xml:id. 8. Associating stylesheets--awaiting TAG action. Henry noticed that the HTML CG has run into the same issue. There is an interaction between media types and secondary resource, and there appears to be no consensus on the HTML CG as to what should be the case. Henry asked the HTML CG if they felt this issue should be taken to the TAG, but being as he just asked them, there hasn't yet been a response. ACTION to Henry: Continue to see if this issue should be brought to the TAG. 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. Then we had a further issue about base URIs in the infoset. Richard sent email to www-tag on this: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0077 10. XML Validity and DTD dependence. Rich Saltz started the discussion at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0026 and there have been several sub-threads. The discussion continues. 11. XInclude, schema validity-assessment, xml:base and xml:lang Henry kicked this off at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0039 We didn't discuss this topic much ourselves, but Norm and Henry both lean toward making it an issue for the XML Schema WG, so we are waiting to hear from them. 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/0059 [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 Monday, 25 April 2005 13:56:58 UTC