Re: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 June 22

Belated regrets.  My connectivity went away most of the day.


Paul Grosso a écrit :
> 
> 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 19:07:49 UTC