W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > August 2005

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 August 24

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:41:21 -0500
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HQ-EX3FE2gkJqzBScKN000020bd@HQ-EX3FE2.ptcnet.ptc.com>

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
August 24, 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.

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.

xml:lang in XML 1.0 (3e) and XML 1.1 issue:

3.  XLink update.

The LC WD of XLink 1.1 has been published:

We have comments at

ACTION to Norm:  Reply as feasible and bring issues worth
discussing to the WG via email.

XLink 1.1: XML Base confusion

XML Base references RFC 2396 and XLink references RFC 3987
(the IRI one) which references RFC 3986 (2396-bis) for
absolutization and such, but nothing has changed between
2396 and 3986 wrt absolutization.  So we don't see the problem.

ACTION to Norm:  Take this back to the commentor.

XLink 1.1: Error handling

We say what the conformance criteria are but not what
to do when an error is encountered.  For example, what
should we do if someone specifies an invalid value for
one of the xlink:* attributes.

Francois points out that this hasn't changed since XLink 1.0.

ACTION to Norm:  Craft some words along the lines of error
handling being implementation dependent.

XLink 1.1: XLink 1.1 in XML 1.1

Norm suggests we just say that XLink works for both XML 1.0
and XML 1.1, and the names should just match the version
being used.

XLink 1.1: Integration with CSS

How does XLink interact with CSS's :link selector?

Francois suggests that we add a note that says "languages
such as CSS should see XLink links as links."

ACTION to Norm:  Respond to the commenter and to the CSS WG.

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]. 

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:
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:

Our XInclude potential errata document is at:

Daniel has updated the PE document with all the resolutions
except a new one--see agenda item 11 below.

We need to turn the PE document into an errata document.

ACTION to DV:  Produce a draft Errata document, using
http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata as a starting 

There have been some more XInclude test suite questions
recently on the list:
ERH is fielding them to some extent, but it would be good
to have someone else (Richard, Daniel?) take a look too.

7. xml:id.

The PR was published (2005 July 12) at

The test suite is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xml-id/ 

The "central page" for the implementation report is

8.  Associating stylesheets--awaiting TAG action.

Henry reports that the HTML CG has been discussing this
for a while.  They are developing a draft statement of
the issue, and Chris Lilley will raise this at the XML CG.

Henry thinks the XML CG should say one of two things:

1.  Have Chris send it on to XML Core;
2.  Request guidance from above.

Henry thinks #1 is the correct next step.

Chris started the discussion on the XML CG list--see
I expect the CG to pass this issue on to us this week.

9.  absolutivity of [base URI]
    Norm has asked a question about the absolutivity of [base URI]:

We discussed this at our f2f:

We have CONSENSUS that base URIs are always absolute. 

Then we had a further issue about base URIs in the infoset.

DV asks if it's always possible to make a relative URI absolute.
Consider a relative xml:base URI in a stream that has no base URI.

DV thinks his implementation doesn't expect the base URI to be

Richard says that, in this case, the Infoset does not define
a base URI.  All base URIs defined by the Infoset are absolute,
but we say nothing about a base URI defined by an application.

There is agreement that in the case where the base URI of an 
infoset is absolute, that all base URI properties in that 
infoset should be absolute.

Richard sent email to www-tag about possible differences between 
what RFC 2396 and 3986 say about base URIs:

HST spoke to Roy Fielding at the TAG meeting (2005 June 15ish), 
and Roy will reply to Richard's email as a first step.

11.  XInclude, schema validity-assessment, xml:base and xml:lang

Henry kicked this off at:

XInclude requires xml:base fixup with adds xml:base
attributes to a document.  This causes problems 
validating the result against the original schema
if that schema doesn't mention xml:base.

Norm wants the XML Schema group to have a mode that
says "just assume all xml:* attributes are okay".

Henry points out we even have problems with validation
against DTDs in this case.

It was suggested that we add to the XInclude spec:
"An XInclude processor may, at user option, suppress
xml:base and/or xml:lang fixup."

Note, since this is "at user option" [see the XML spec
for the defn of "at user option"], all XInclude processors
MUST support xml:base and xml:lang fixup, but they MAY
provide a user-specifiable option to suppress such fixup.

We have CONSENSUS to add this phrase.

ACTION to DV:  Add this to the XInclude PE document 
with the resolution as suggested above.

[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/2005Jul/0017
[8] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata
[9] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V11-1e-errata
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 08:19:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:29 UTC