Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 Nov 23

Attendees
---------
Paul
Ravi, CDAC (on IRC)
Norm
Leonid
Henry
Richard

[5 organizations (5 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------  
Glenn  
John

Absent organizations
--------------------
IBM (with regrets)
Lew Shannon  
John Cowan (with regrets)
François Yergeau
Daniel Veillard

We WILL meet next week.  Regrets from Paul and Henry.
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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> The Voice Browser WG (VBWG) asks us about forbidding an 
> internal subset when referencing the VoiceXML 2.1 DTD:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Nov/0019

Norm figures if SOAP can forbid it, VBWG might as well.

Henry points out that the VoiceXML application can forbid
it as long as they don't imply that something with an
internal subset is not XML.

ACTION to Paul:  Send some reply.

> 
> 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?

There has been some discussion, but apparently little meeting
of the minds.  

Norm's action remains open while he tries to figure out what
the other folks are talking about.

----

11.  Henry raises that RFC 3023 is out of date and the draft
replacement has expired.  Henry says there is a new draft
expected soon (Murata-san will send something to Chris to
publish soon).



> 
> [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, 23 November 2005 16:25:32 UTC