- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:48:34 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Paul Norm Leonid Richard Henry François Daniel [6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 10] Regrets ------- Absent organizations -------------------- Centre for Development of Advanced Computing IBM John Cowan Lew Shannon > 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. Ravi from Centre for Development of Advanced Computing has joined the WG (but he was absent for this telcon). --- > xml:lang in XML 1.0 (3e) and XML 1.1 issue: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Aug/0003 Henry forwarded the initial issue to the XML Core WG (via the above referenced email). The schema for the XML namespace should allow xml:lang values to include the empty string. CONSENSUS with the above statement. ACTION to Henry: Update the schema for the XML namespace and send announcements to appropriate fora. --- Paul asked a question about the schema for schemas: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Aug/0008 Henry agrees that it looks like a bug that the DTD for schemas doesn't allow 0 and 1 for values of the boolean datatype. ACTION to Paul: Send the message to www-xml-schema-comments; Henry will shepherd it from there. --- Norm says the TAG says we should talk to the CSS WG about xml:id: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Aug/0005 But we have discussed this with the CSS WG, and they added wording to the latest spec--see the final paragraph of the section "5.9 ID selectors" at http://www.w3.org/Style/css21-updates/WD-CSS21-20050613-20040225-diff/select or.html#id-selectors where it mentions xml:id explicitly. ACTION to Norm: Point out the above to the TAG. > > 3. XLink update. > > The LC WD of XLink 1.1 has been published: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/ > > We have comments at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2 > 005JulSep/ > > ACTION to Norm: Reply as feasible and bring issues worth > discussing to the WG via email. > > XLink 1.1: XML Base confusion > ----------------------------- > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2 > 005JulSep/0009 > > 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 > ------------------------- > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2 > 005JulSep/0013 > > 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 > ------------------------------- > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2 > 005JulSep/0012 > > 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 > ------------------------------- > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2 > 005JulSep/0018 > > 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. Norm will look at XLink comments and be ready next week with some more comments to discuss. > > 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: > 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 > > 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 > point/template. > ACTION continued. > There have been some more XInclude test suite questions > recently on the list: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2005Jul/ > ERH is fielding them to some extent, but it would be good > to have someone else (Richard, Daniel?) take a look too. ACTION to Richard, Daniel: Continued. > > 7. xml:id. > > The PR was published (2005 July 12) at > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-xml-id-20050712/ > > The test suite is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xml-id/ > > The "central page" for the implementation report is > http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id-implementation.html The PR comment period closes this Friday. It looks like we have no significant comments at this time. Norm will have suggested changes to the document by Sept 7 (if not next week). > > 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 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2005Jul/thread.html#15 > I expect the CG to pass this issue on to us this week. The XML CG did discuss it some, but discussion within the CG continues. > > 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. > > 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 > absolute. > > 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: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0077 The difference is whether the fragment component is removed from the base URI (3986 removes it, 2396 doesn't). > HST spoke to Roy Fielding at the TAG meeting (2005 June 15ish), > and Roy will reply to Richard's email as a first step. Never heard from Roy. We have decided to DROP this issue (as UNRESOLVED, but not important enough to continue for now). > > 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 > > 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. Done. > > [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 > [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, 24 August 2005 15:49:19 UTC