Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 June 1

Attendees
---------
Paul 
Glenn 
Arnaud
Leonid
Richard
Henry
John  xx:15
François 

[7 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
------- 
Norm
Daniel

Absent organizations
--------------------
Oracle
Daniel Veillard (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
Lew Shannon
 

Henry and Richard sends regrets for next week.


> 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 XML Core WG reviewed the QA Framework Last Call and had
> some issues:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jan/0025
> The QA WG responsed at 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005May/0041
> Paul sent in an individual (non-WG) Objection to resolution at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005May/0112

Karl responded at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005May/0116

Henry suggests Paul talk to Dom since Henry believes QA
is waiting for something from Paul.

ACTION to Paul:  Check with Dom.


Henry has made a pre-announcement of W3C-internal review 
release of XPointer scheme registry at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2005AprJun/0051

Paul objects to the whole idea of a registry, since he
thinks this is a bad idea in the first place.  Paul should
register his disapproval on the AC list on Monday and maybe
on the chairs list now.

> 
> 3.  XLink update.
> 
> The first WD of XLink 1.1 has been published:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050428/
> 
> The Issues/DoC list is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/04/xlink11/wd-status/
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0029
> for our PE document which is awaiting updating by DV.
> 
> ACTION to DV:  Update the XInclude PE document with the resolutions.

ACTION to DV continued.

> 
> 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
> 
> DV's results are at:
> http://veillard.com/xmlidresult.html
> Norm put them someone on the W3C server, but I can't
> find them.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Organize http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id/
> better.  Have the overview aka index point to the various
> reports.  Also augment 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id-implementation.html 
> to point to the various reports.

ACTION to Norm 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.
> 
> Richard sent email at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005May/0006
> Elliotte replied that this didn't help.  After more WG 
> discussion, we had:
> 
> CONSENSUS:  We will change the must to a should, remove
> "to the application", and add the sentence:
> 
>   In the interest of interoperability, it is strongly
>   recommended that xml:id errors not be silently ignored.
> 
> We will plan to request PR for xml:id sometime in June 
> after the AC meeting.
> 
> Paul sent out a draft xml:id PR request at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005May/0060

No comments at this time, but Henry will double check it.

> 
> 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 Henry isn't getting a single voice 
> out of the HTML CG.  He will continue to work on this.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Continue to see if this issue should
> be brought to the TAG.

ACTION to Henry continued.

> 
> 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
> 
> ACTION to Henry, Norm:  Ensure the TAG is aware of this thread
> and let us know if they have anything to say.

ACTION to Henry and Norm continued.

> 
> 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 if it satisfies
> the commentors (or as close to that as we can get).
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Check with Mike Champion and Ashok Malhotra 
> as to whether this wording would satisfy the issue.

Ongoing.  Henry will ping Ashok again.

> 
> [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/2005May/0057
> [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, 1 June 2005 15:29:49 UTC