(Non-)Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 Nov 9

We only had three of us dial in, so we didn't meet.

Note:

We are CANCELLING the call on the 16th due to 
the XML conference, so our next telcon will be
November 23rd.

Below is just a copy of the agenda so folks can
be reminded of their action items.

paul

> 
> Agenda
> ======
> 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).
> 
> 
> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 
> We are planning a f2f at the Technical Plenary 27 Feb-3 March 2006
> in Cannes, France.  The XML Core WG is currently scheduled to
> meet Thursday and Friday, March 2-3 of that week.
> See http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html though there 
> is really nothing there yet about the 2006 meeting.
> 
> Chris Lilley asks about xml:base and IRI:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0004
> 
> Norm thinks we should change the bib ref from 2986
> to 3986.  Section 3.1 should say any xml:base should
> first have spaces escaped to %20 and then have the
> IRI changed to a URI per 3987.
> 
> We should have uniform language for XLink 1.1, XLink 1.0,
> xml:base, xinclude, XML 1.0, and XML 1.1 (as errata for 
> all but XLink 1.1).
> 
> There is some question as to whether we should bother
> to make an erratum for XLink 1.0, but we did not resolve
> this.
> 
> ACTION to JohnC:  Compose some language for all the specs.
> 
> 
> 3.  XLink update.
> 
> The LC WD of XLink 1.1 has been published:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/
> 
> We have comments at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 005JulSep/
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Reply as feasible and bring issues worth
> discussing to the WG via email.
> 
> 
> 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]. 
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document including
> issues raised on public-xml-testsuite@w3.org.
> 
> PE 147 is in countdown until our next telcon (which
> will be Nov 23).
> 
> JohnC did a scan for MUST/SHOULD and reported at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0015
> 
> Hnery would like to see a marked up version of the
> document highlighting the proposed changes.
> 
> John agrees to do that.
> 
> ACTION to John:  Review the MAYs again and create
> a marked up version with changes.
> 
> 
> 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 Errata document at
> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata 
> 
> Elliotte's results are not
> included in our Implementation Report at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xinclude-implementation/report.html
> as he reports in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/
> 2005Jul/00
> 12
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Update the IR with results for ERH's tests
> when they are available.
> 
> ERH's tests are in the CVS repository for the test suite.
> 
> ACTION to Daniel:  Run ERH's tests through libxml and
> provide Richard with a report.
> 
> Paul has asked ERH for his results, but has not yet
> received a response.
> 
> 
> 7. xml:id is a Recommendation, published 2005 Sept 9:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-xml-id-20050909/
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Chris started the discussion on the XML CG list--see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2005Jul/thread.html#15
> The XML CG will continue to discuss it for a while.
> 
> 
> 9.  C14N is listed in our charter:
> 
>  Canonical XML version 1.1
> 
>  The work on xml:id uncovered some inconsistencies
>  in Canonical XML version 1.0 (see xml:id CR,
>  Appendix C, "Impacts on Other Standards"). The
>  Working Group will produce a new version of
>  Canonical XML to address those inconsistencies,
>  as well as others that might be discovered at a
>  later stage.
> 
> We have CONSENSUS that we have been chartered to do a 1.1
> and that we should not try to do this as an erratum.
> 
> We are not sure how best to do this as a 1.1.  We should try
> to elaborate the possible ways of handling this and ask the
> C14N community how best to go about this.  For example, if
> we create a new namespace for C14N 1.1, what do we say the 
> old namespace means?  We'd like to avoid the flak we are
> getting for XML 1.1.
> 
> We should probably use the existing mailing list
> w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org to gather opinions.
> 
> ACTION to Glenn:  Post an email on this list explaining
> we are doing a 1.1 and asking for how we can minimize
> disruption.
> 
> 10.  Henry added a "forking QNames" item:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Nov/0000
> 
> We had some discussion last week.
> 
> Norm argues that we should object to the use of the
> QName syntax for things that aren't QNames.  He also
> objects to the invention of a new mechanism for declaring
> things that look like namespaces when they aren't really.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Raise this concern at the TAG level.
> 
> There was more discussion in email after last week's call.
> 
> Where do we stand?
> 
> 
> [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/2005Nov/0004
> [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, 9 November 2005 16:23:36 UTC