Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 Oct 12

Attendees
---------
 Paul
 Glenn
 Leonid
 Norm
 Richard 
 Daniel
 François 
 John  

[7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------  
Henry

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


> 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.
> 
> 
> 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 Henry:  Reply to the commentor on the finer
points of the process document, XLink open thread #1.

13. XLink 1.1: Error handling
24. [xlink11] error handling
-----------------------------
Norm was going to write text saying that error handling
is implementation dependent, but we fear that may not
be accepted by the commentors.

We will do so anyway and point out that addressing
this is not in our charter.

6. XLink 1.1: "XML document" undefined
--------------------------------------
We believe we have a good definition of XML document,
and making further changes are out of scope.  We can
link to the definition of "document" in the XML spec,
both XML 1.0 and XML 1.1.

CONSENSUS to add a pointer to the XML spec(s).

16. XLink 1.1: Security Considerations
--------------------------------------
CONSENSUS:  This is out of scope for our work on 
XLink 1.1 per our charter for this work.

17. XLink 1.1: Xlink vs "legacy" linking
22. [xlink11] integration with existing markup
----------------------------------------------
CONSENSUS:  The XLink spec only describes what XLink processors 
do, and if you are using xlink in concert with some other processor
that has linking semantics, how that works is outside the scope
of the XLink spec.

26. XLink 1.1 WD: Optional type attribute 
----------------------------------------
Editorial, we agree, Norm will fix.


> 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.

Francois updated the PE document at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/02/proposed-xml10-3e-and-xml11-errata

PE144 Definition of ANY 
-----------------------
The commentor suggests there is a superfluous paragraph in
the description of the ANY content model.

Richard, John, Norm think the para is useful and should remain.

CONSENSUS:  Leave as is as this para may be useful for some.

PE146 Extend note on control chars in 2.2 
-----------------------------------------
In XML 1.1, make most of the C0 control characters discouraged,
as we have done with the C1 characters.

CONSENSUS:  Accept this suggestion.

ACTION to Francois:  Provide a proposed wording and put
into two week countdown.

PE145 Prescriptive keywords in sec. 2.10 and 2.12 
-------------------------------------------------
For sec. 2.10, Rejected, as the "should" there is
not a SHOULD, it's just a prose "should".

In sect. 2.12, that's a note, so language therein
cannot be normative, so Rejected.

ACTION to John:  Search for use of must and should
related to the behavior of applications in XML 1.x.

PE141 Conflict between Standalone Document Declaration 
VC in [32] and Entity Declared WFC in [68] 
-------------------------------------------------------
Change "external parameter entities" to
"external parameter entity references".

ACCEPTED.

ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document and put
into countdown.

For 140 and 142, Richard is concerned about fiddling
this text because it is so touchy, and we've fooled
with it before.  DV and John tend to agree.  We'll
leave these alone for now.

PE143 The "No < in Attribute Values" WFC in prods. [41] and [60] 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Someone needs to look at this more closely.

ACTION to Richard:  Look into this and report back.

> 
> 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.

Glenn heard from John, and he's willing to help.
Glenn will work with John.  (The source is in HTML.)

> 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.

DV will contact Aleksey Sanin.

> 
> [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 Wednesday, 12 October 2005 15:58:37 UTC