Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 Oct 5

Attendees
---------
Paul
Glenn
Leonid
Richard 
John  

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

Regrets
-------  
Henry
Norm
Daniel
Lew

Absent organizations
--------------------
Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (Ravi on irc)
W3C (with regrets)
Daniel Veillard (with regrets)
François Yergeau
Lew Shannon (with regrets)

> 
> 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).

Accepted.

> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 
> XSLT and XML 1.1
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Sep/0038

Norm and John and Richard looked at this and thought all was well.

> 
> 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.
> 
> XLink 1.1: XML Base confusion
> -----------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
005JulSep/
> 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/2
005JulSep/
> 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/2
005JulSep/
> 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/2
005JulSep/
> 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.

ACTION continued.

> 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.

No reply from ERH yet.

> 
> 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.

ACTION continued.

> 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.

ACTION continued.

> 
> 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.

Richard replied, but that generated no further email,
so this seems to be closed.

> 
> [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 Wednesday, 5 October 2005 15:17:07 UTC