Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 Oct 12

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
October 12, 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.


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.


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.


[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/2005Oct/0003
[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, 10 October 2005 14:24:38 UTC