- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:37:54 -0400
- To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87k6ju67jh.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com> was heard to say:
| We had an XML Core WG phone call on Wednesday, July 13.
Attendees
---------
Norm [chair, scribe]
Arnaud
Leonid
Lew
Henry
Daniel [:17-]
Regrets
-------
Paul
Richard
HT regrets for the next four weeks
DV regrets for the next two weeks
NW regrets for next week
| Agenda
| ======
| 1. Accepting the minutes from the last quorate telcon [3] and
| the current task status [2] (have any questions, comments,
| or corrections ready by the beginning of the call).
Minutes of 6 July accepted.
| 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
Norm mentions xml:id and XLink.
| 3. XLink update.
|
| The LC WD of XLink 1.1 has been published:
| http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/
|
| We already have a PILE of comments at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/
No updates; Norm will attempt to reply to them before next week.
DV observes that most of the comments are attempts to address other
issues in XLink 1.0 that are not on our plate to resolve.
| 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].
Nothing new to discuss.
| 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.
Continued.
| 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
Continued.
| 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.
Continued.
Henry: We've been postponing the decision about implementations
skipping xml:base and/or xml:lang fixup for a while. Some implementors
have already conceded that it would be useful, so Henry proposes that
we go ahead and issue the erratum.
Henry recalls that we had consensus to do this and were just waiting
for buyin from some of our customers, which we now have.
See also item 11 on this agenda.
| 7. xml:id.
|
| The CR was published (2005 Feb 8) at
| http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-xml-id-20050208/
|
| 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 issue/DoC is at
| http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xml-id/cr-status/status-report.html
|
| Paul sent out the xml:id PR request at:
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Jun/0054
|
| We had a successful PR call last Thursday; publication
| of the PR is expected to be July 12th.
PR draft was published yesterday! Yay! We now wait to see what the AC
says. ERH has posted a useful editorial comment that we will need to
address.
| 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.
|
| ChrisL has acknowledged his action but has not yet
| passed anything on to the XML CG.
Continued pending action from ChrisL.
| 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
|
| HST spoke to Roy Fielding at the TAG meeting (2005 June 15ish),
| and Roy will reply to Richard's email as a first step.
Continued until Richard returns.
| 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.
Continued.
12. QT DM issue (from XML Core WG) Declaration base URI[10]
Norm wonders if we can make it 'Unknown'
Daniel says 'no' because the only useful thing you can do with one
of these things in any event is access it and you can't do that if you
don't know the base URI.
Henry agrees and observes that even though what it says is wrong in
some obscure corner cases, it's right most of the time so that's
better than making it always unusable.
Norm says he'll try to find some wording that allows implementations
that care to be more careful without upsetting the QT groups by trying
to impose additional properties on all implementations.
General agreement that that's the right thing to try next.
| [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/2005Jun/0058
| [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
[10] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1296
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:38:05 UTC