Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 January 5

John xx:30
[9 organizations (9 with proxies) present out of 12]


Absent organizations
NIST (with regrets)
François Yergeau (with regrets)

> 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.
> The next W3C Technical Plenary Week will be 28 February 2005
> through 4 March 2005:
>      http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html
>      http://www.w3.org/2004/12/allgroupoverview.html 
> Unless things change (unlikely), the XML Core WG f2f meeting 
> days will be Thursday and Friday, March 3rd and 4th.
> Register for the meeting at: 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TP2005/
> Register at the hotel: 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/allgroupoverview.html#Venue. 
> The negotiated room rate at the meeting hotel, Hyatt Harborside, 
> http://harborside.hyatt.com/property/index.jhtml is $139 (plus 12.45% 
> tax); this discount rate expires 5 February 2005.

So noted.

> ACTION: Norm will try to set up a meeting time with the TAG 
> during the Tech Plen week in case we have something to discuss 
> with them by then.

ACTION continued.

> 2.5  All XML Activity WGs have been asked to review
>   QA Framework: Specification Guidelines 
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/
> whose Last Call Ends 28 January 2005.
> Are there any volunteers to make such a review and
> report back to the WG?

Dmitry volunteers.

ACTION to Dmitry:  Review QA Framework: Specification Guidelines
and report back to the XML Core WG by January 18th.

> 3.  XLink update.
> We will have to make it an XLink 1.1, and we need to make a
> charter change.  
> The XML CG suggested that someone (SVG or XML Core)
> write a WG Note that effectively outlines the desired changes
> to XLink.  Then, we can put through an XML Core WG charter
> change that allows us specifically to issue an XLink 1.1 that
> implements the changes in the Note.
> We decided to develop a WG Note "Extending XLink 1.0"
> that lists the changes we suggest to XLink 1.0.
> ACTION to Norm:  Draft such a WG Note.


Henry/John request adding non-normative XML Schema and RelaxNG

We plan next week to agree to send notice to chairs; and then 
the following week we will approve sending in the pubrequest.

John raises the issue of XPointer maintenance--since no WG
currently owns it--but Norm would rather not open that can
of worms.  So our current charter-update plan is just to have
"issue XLink 1.1 to match the WG Note" added to our charter.

> 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]. 
> PE 135, 136, and 137 are in countdown until this week's telcon.

CONSENSUS to approve for publication.

ACTION to Francois:  Process as approved.

> 5. Namespaces in XML.
>   Ongoing ACTION to Richard:  Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed.
> Paul checked with W3C folks about whether we can
> fold editorial errata from 1.1 back into 1.0 2nd Ed
> and our plan is acceptable:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0041
> Richard pointed out a namespace comment at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2004Dec/0000
> which requests something which is almost a different kind of schema.

ACTION to Richard:  Send email outlining the issue and your suggested

> 6. Xinclude Rec was published 2004 December 30 at:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xinclude-20041220/
> The DIWG sent email about XInclude--see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Dec/0009
> and a fair amount of follow up in the December WG archives.
> Is there any more we feel we should do/say as a WG on this?

This is really a processing model issue.  We can't imagine
doing anything to XInclude that facilitates DIWG's use case.

FWIW, HT tells us Liam is writing a charter for a processing model
WG in the XML Activity.

> It has been brought to my attention that we apparently failed
> to look at the public XInclude comments list for comments
> received during the PR review which is basically the October
> archives for this list:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2004Oct/
> We will treat these are errata.  
> Do we have any volunteers to be editor of the XInclude errata process?

DV volunteers.

ACTION to DV:  Create a PE document for XInclude.

> 7. xml:id.
> Our Last Call of xml:id is published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/
> The Last Call review will have ended by this week's telcon.
> The (public) xml:id LC issues is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xml-id/lc-status/status-report.html
> ACTION to Norm:  Update it to reflect followup email by this week's 
> telcon when we will start going through the issues.

Norm has started processing comments.

Ian Hickson

CONSENSUS to agree with Norm that the value of xml:id will be
normalized as any thing of type ID would.  We should say that
the normalized-value property in the resulting infoset would
be the normalized value of the xml:id attribute.

Ian Hickson

xml:id processing occurs when the xml:id processor is invoked,
and it's up to the application to decide when to call the
xml:id processor.  We recommend that xml:id processing when
XML id processing happens (e.g., at or immediately after parsing
or, in a dynamic environment, whenever it may be possible for
the value of an id or xml:id attribute to change).

Ian Hickson
What happens when the value of xml:id is the null string?

We've already decided that id assignment occurs even when the
string is not a valid id value.  The same should occur for
xml:id="" as id="" (where id is declared of type ID in the DTD);
the result is invalid but well-formed.

CONSENSUS:  It is (already) an xml:id error for the value to be
the null string, but id assignment is still performed.

Ian Hickson
CONSENSUS to add a note about conformance of documents per Ian's

Leigh Klotz
We have a "must not" in a non-normative section, to wit:
"DTD authors must not declare xml:id as something other than ID."

John suggested we should move this to a normative section and
make it an xml:id error.

But Richard points out that not all processors will have access
to the DTD and/or this info.

As it stands, it is already an xml:id error, so we should fix
the non-normative wording so that it doesn't use "must not" but 
is instead worded as a warning to DTD authors.

ACTION to Norm:  Process these and other comments and update
the issues doc accordingly.

> [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/2004Dec/0020
> [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, 5 January 2005 17:09:58 UTC