Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 May 11

Attendees
---------
Paul 
Glenn 
Dmitry xx:13
Leonid
Richard
Henry
Daniel
John xx:15

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

Regrets
------- 
Norm
François 
Lew

Absent organizations
--------------------
François Yergeau
Lew Shannon


Paul sends regrets for next week.  Norm will chair.


> 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 new XML Core WG charter has been approved.
> The Call for Participation is out, and everyone on the WG
> has to have their AC rep submit their name as a member in
> the rechartered WG by May 20th:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0006
> 
> 
> We've received a response from the QA group on our
> comment about QA Framework.  See Paul's message
> summarizing this at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005May/0004

Paul doesn't feel their response addresses our concerns,
and he feels that we should push back on this.

DV, Richard, and Henry tend to agree with Paul (though
they may not feel as strongly about how much of a fuss
to make).

ACTION to Henry:  Draft a response to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005May/0041
making it clear this is an XML Core WG issue/comment,
making it clear we aren't satisfied with the response,
and trying to make it clearer what we're trying to say.

Since we need to reply by May 18, we can discuss Henry's
draft at next week's telcon, but then we need to be sure
to send the response before the end of day May 18.

ACTION to Henry:  Be sure to send a response to 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005May/0041
by the end of day next Wednesday.

> 
> 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]. 
> 
> We had a question about the XML Test Suite arise; see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0037
> 
> Awaiting response from Richard.

ACTION to Richard continued.

> 
> 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
> 
> On the last test, Norm fails because XSLT can't do it.
> Norm gets a space in it that shouldn't be there.  When
> Richard runs it, he gets the empty string for the result.
> That is, Norm and Richard got different results
> out of their XSLT processors.  We thought this might
> have to do with being normalized twice (or something).
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Investigate why Richard and Norm are
> getting different results from their XSLT processor
> for the last test.

ACTION to Norm continued.

> 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.
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Suggest some rewording for this and
> pass it by ERH.

Done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005May/0006
No response yet.

> 
> Paul sent email to the CSS WG about xml:id:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0091
> and there have been a slew of responses, but I think we're 
> mostly agreeing except perhaps on the details of just how
> to word things in the CSS spec.

Lots of smoke, unclear if there is much heat.  Doesn't
seem to be anything we need to do here.


Paul figured we should shoot for request for PR for xml:id
sometime in June after the AC meeting.

> 
> 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 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.
> 
> Richard sent email to www-tag on this:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0077
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Review the responses.

Not much to review as there was only one response.

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

> 
> 
> 10.  XML Validity and DTD dependence.
>   Rich Saltz started the discussion at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0026
> and there have been several sub-threads.  
> 
> Rich Salz attended (the beginning of) last week's telcon,
> and we had a thorough discussion (and Rich later approved
> the minutes for this agenda item in private email to me).
> This item is now closed as far as the WG is concerned.
> Any potential followup is now in Rich's court.
> 
> 
> 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 will review this during this week's telcon to see  
> if we are willing to add that phrase.

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.

> 
> [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/0005
> [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, 11 May 2005 16:13:55 UTC