Minute for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 April 27

Attendees
---------
Paul 
Glenn 
Dmitry
Norm 
Leonid
Richard
Henry
François 
Daniel
Lew

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

Regrets
------- 

Absent organizations
--------------------
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 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.

ACTION to Richard continued, should be done by next telcon.

Lew points out the namespace axis is now optional 
so namespace handling is quite different.

Both Lew and Richard thought this could be problematic
for users, but Richard wasn't sure this should be an
XML Core WG comment.

If individuals think this change is a problem, they
should make an individual comment about this.

> 
> 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?
>

Henry reports (after checking) that it will be published tomorrow.

> 
> 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).

Done, PE 139.

> 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.

ACTION to Richard continued.

> 
> 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).
> 

ACTION to DV:  Update the PE document with the resolutions.

> 
> 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 Norm continued.

> ACTION to DV:  Run your implementation on the 
> test suite and produce some feedback report.

ACTION to DV continued.

> 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.

ACTION to Richard continued.

> 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.

Norm has patched Amaya to recognize xml:id wrt CSS.

> 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.

(selectors of #foo matching xml:id="foo").

ACTION to Paul:  Continued.

Then there's the thread started on public-xml-id arguing 
again for xmlid instead of xml:id. See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005Apr/0013
and followup.

>From a purely technical aspect, either xmlid or xml:id
would work.  But namespaces was developed for this purpose,
and we think we should use it, and anything else would
likely surprise users for no substantial benefit.

> 
> 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.

Henry isn't getting a single voice out of the HTML CG.
He will continue to work on this.

> 
> 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

ACTION to Richard:  Review the responses.

> 
> 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.

We aren't sure the WG and Rich are really understanding
each other.

ACTION to Paul:  See if Rich can attend a WG telcon.

> 
> 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.

We will take this near the beginning of the call next week
so that we have more time to discuss it.  People should read
the above URL before the telcon.

> 
> [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 Wednesday, 27 April 2005 16:02:03 UTC