- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 10:38:54 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, October 5, from 08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka 11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka 15:00-16:00 UTC 16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK 17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#. We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 . See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents and other information. If you have additions to the agenda, please email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon. Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it at the beginning of the call. DV gives regrets for Oct 5th. 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. XSLT and XML 1.1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Sep/0038 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/2005JulSep/ ACTION to Norm: Reply as feasible and bring issues worth discussing to the WG via email. XLink 1.1: XML Base confusion ----------------------------- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/ 0009 XML Base references RFC 2396 and XLink references RFC 3987 (the IRI one) which references RFC 3986 (2396-bis) for absolutization and such, but nothing has changed between 2396 and 3986 wrt absolutization. So we don't see the problem. ACTION to Norm: Take this back to the commentor. XLink 1.1: Error handling ------------------------- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/ 0013 We say what the conformance criteria are but not what to do when an error is encountered. For example, what should we do if someone specifies an invalid value for one of the xlink:* attributes. Francois points out that this hasn't changed since XLink 1.0. ACTION to Norm: Craft some words along the lines of error handling being implementation dependent. XLink 1.1: XLink 1.1 in XML 1.1 ------------------------------- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/ 0012 Norm suggests we just say that XLink works for both XML 1.0 and XML 1.1, and the names should just match the version being used. XLink 1.1: Integration with CSS ------------------------------- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/ 0018 How does XLink interact with CSS's :link selector? Francois suggests that we add a note that says "languages such as CSS should see XLink links as links." ACTION to Norm: Respond to the commenter and to the CSS WG. ACTIONs to Norm continued--expected due date October 12th. 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. 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: Run ERH's tests through the other implementations and add the results to the XInclude IR. 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. Richard will ask ERH for his results if he can't find them. 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. Glenn agreed to be editor of C14N V1.1. Glenn got a copy of the spec, but just in HTML. The editor was John Boyer--we should ask him for the source. ACTION to Glenn: Email John Boyer about where to find the authoritative source. We need to check the comments list to see if there are other potential errata we should consider: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/ ACTION to Glenn: Email to the XML Core WG list the existing paragraph and the suggested new wording. 10. Henry forwarded and xml-dev question about links, xinclude, and xml:base: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200509/msg00249.html DV had a response about using the xpointer xpointer scheme. Richard suggests that the #item1 link should point into the current document which is the includ*ing* document, so things should work as the user wants if properly implemented. Richard things the answer is that the link does point into the current document, but the current document is the result of having expanded the xinclude, so the #item1 link should refer to item with xml:id="item1" in the resulting document. So while it's true that: "...the link points to http://example.com/common/policy.xml#item1..." the "#item1" link is still a same document link (per either RFC 2396 or 3986) so it does still link to the item with xml:id="item1". ACTION to Richard: Reply to this on xml-dev. [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/2005Sep/0035 [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 Monday, 3 October 2005 14:57:17 UTC