- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:51:08 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Paul Glenn Norm Richard xx:17 Henry [5 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 9] Regrets ------- John Daniel Absent organizations -------------------- François Yergeau John Cowan (with regrets) Daniel Veillard (with regrets, proxy to the chair and approve PR for xml:id) 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. > > > 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 sent an updated XML Schema: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Jun/0029 > > 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. > > Paul sent pre-notice to chairs about upcoming LC of XLink 1.1: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2005AprJun/0075 > > ACTION to Norm: Produce an LC-ready draft of XLink 1.1. ACTION continued. > ACTION to Paul: Double-check the status section. > > > 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. > > Paul pointed commentors to the PE document: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2005Jun/0005 > > 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. > > > 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 (I believe) is > http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id-implementation.html > > ACTION to Norm: Improve our IR central page at > 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 > and Norm is working on closing open issues. > > Paul sent out a second draft xml:id PR request at: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Jun/0014 > > We expect to vote to request PR for xml:id during this > week's telcon. We went through a few more issues that caused editorial changes. Norm will produce a new PR draft with these changes before the end of today. If no one complains before COB Thursday, Paul will send in the PR request first thing Friday. CONSENSUS: The XML Core WG agrees to request PR for xml:id. ACTION to Paul: Send in the PR request Friday morning. ACTION to Henry: Schedule a PR call. > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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 (done) and > Ashok Malhotra (ongoing) as to whether this wording > would satisfy the issue. > > 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/0038 > [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, 22 June 2005 15:53:18 UTC