- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:50:12 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Paul Glenn Leonid Norm Henry John xx:24 Daniel [6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 9] Regrets ------- Richard Absent organizations -------------------- Univ of Edinburgh (with regrets) Lew Shannon François Yergeau Regrets from Henry and Norm unless they step out of the TAG f2f. > 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. Oracle has not renewed participation in the WG. > > 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/ Henry is going to update the XML Schema that's included in the WD. There are a few other relatively minor things for Norm to do and then we can potentially have a WD we can take to LC. He expects to be able to get another draft (perhaps LC-ready) by the end of the month. > > 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. Daniel just updated http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/proposed-xinclude-errata with what he thinks are all the resolutions. ACTION to Paul: Point commentors to that document. We need to turn this into an errata document. ACTION to DV: Produce a draft Errata document, starting with http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata > > 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. > In progress. The PR issue/DoC is at http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xml-id/cr-status/status-report.html and Norm is working on closing open issues. We discussed and closed all the remaining issues. ACTION to Norm: Send email to commentors and update the DoC. > 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 Henry suggested a minor editorial addition, and Norm has provided some more URLs. ACTION to Paul: Produce another draft PR request for xml:id. > > 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. 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 to XML Core; 2. Request guidance from above. Henry thinks we should look at it next. > > 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. No change in status; ACTION continued. Henry plans to talk to Roy about Richard's message. > > 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. Henry continues to work with Ashok on this. 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/2005Jun/0001 > [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, 8 June 2005 15:50:43 UTC