Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 Oct 19

Attendees
---------
Paul
Glenn  xx:14
Norm
Henry
François 
John  xx:12

[6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------  
Daniel
Richard
Leonid (for the next 4 weeks)

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

Paul sends regrets for the 26th.

> 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.
> 
> Chris Lilley asks about xml:base and IRI:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0004

Norm points out one of the XLink issues is waiting 
for what comes out of this issue.

Chris is asking if xml:base should point to 3986
instead of 2986 AND should we refer to IRIs.

Norm thinks the update to 3986 is uncontroversial
and should be done.

As far as IRIs, we figure this refers to section 3.1
in xml:base which is the same text as we put into
XLink 1.1 when the IRI spec wasn't yet ready.  So
if we change XLink to refer to 3987, it seems we
should do the same for xml:base.

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.

Do we need to make a change in xinclude?  Seems so.
In fact, we need to revisit escaping of href values
in xinclude.

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.

We do have some concerns as to whether we can do this
as an erratum to the various specs.  JohnC thinks there
should be no problem because we are only changing how
it is described, not the behavior of any processors.
Norm and Francois agree.

> 
> 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.

Done.

> ACTION to Norm:  Reply as feasible and bring issues worth
> discussing to the WG via email.

XLink 1.1: XPointer reference 
-----------------------------
Right now we say the frag id syntax for xlink is
xpointer.  We should say something less specific
since other xml media types can define other
frag id syntaxes.

ACTION to Norm:  Come up with some next text and
put it in the WD and reply to the commentor.

XLink 1.1: default xmlns attribute values 
-----------------------------------------
This is a suggestion that we shouldn't talk about
defaulting xlink attribute values because this
implies processing of a DTD.

ACTION to Norm:  Add some phrase saying that you
should only do this is you expect DTD processing
to be performed.

XLink 1.1: Animation 
--------------------
Question of integration of XLink and SMIL.

We want to say it's not in our scope to define the
animation properties of SMIL.  It's up to SMIL to
define such things.

ACTION to Norm:  Reply to the commentor.

XLink 1.1: Schema issues 
------------------------
The XML Schema for XLink defines types in the xlink
namespace not defined in the xlink spec.

ACTION to Henry:  Compose something to send to the
XML Core WG to see if we're happy with it.

[xlink11] integration with existing markup 
------------------------------------------
What happens if you have an xlink:href attribute
on an element that already has linking semantics.

ACTION to Norm:  Not really an XLink problem.  We
can't say what the semantics are when XLink is
combined with other things.

XLink 1.1 WD: Optional type attribute 
-------------------------------------
We missed some places that suggest the type attribute
is still required.  Commentor is correct.

ACTION to Norm:  Fix the spec accordingly.

> 
> 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.

ACTION to Francois continued.

> We have a couple issues in the PE document in countdown
> until next week.

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/0012
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Run ERH's tests through the other
> implementations and add the results to the XInclude IR.

ACTION to Richard 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.

ACTION to Daniel continued.

> ACTION to Richard:  Ask ERH for his results.

ACTION to Richard continued.

> 
> 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.  He's working
> with John Boyer to get 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:  Collect possible errata to see
> which, if any, we want to address in C14N 1.1.
> 
> ACTION to Glenn:  Email to the XML Core WG list the
> existing paragraph (regarding the bogus inheritance
> of xml:* attributes) and the suggested new wording.

Glenn sent something at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0019

He introduced the idea of "scoped" (inherited) attributes.

Henry wants to mention xml:space and xml:lang explicitly
as the scoped (inherited) attributes.

We don't need to use the word "scoped" or "inherited", but 
we do need to say that "the following steps" are for
xml:space and xml:lang only.

If we ever do add a new "inherited" attribute to the xml
namespace, it would not be treated as "inherited" by C14N
unless we reissue C14N.  (Norm points out an application
could still treat it as inherited.)

ACTION to Glenn:  Send out new rewording per our above
discussion. 

> 
> [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/0009
> [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, 19 October 2005 16:21:25 UTC