- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:30:57 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Paul Glenn Norm Leonid Richard Henry Daniel Lew [7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 10] Regrets ------- Absent organizations -------------------- Centre for Development of Advanced Computing François Yergeau (with regrets) John Cowan > 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. > > xml:lang in XML 1.0 (3e) and XML 1.1 issue: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Aug/0003 > > CONSENSUS: The schema for the XML namespace should allow > xml:lang values to include the empty string. > > ACTION to Henry: Update the schema for the XML namespace > and send announcements to appropriate fora. Done. > > Paul asked a question about the schema for schemas: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Aug/0008 > > Henry agrees that it looks like a bug that the DTD > for schemas doesn't allow 0 and 1 for values of > the boolean datatype. > > Paul sent the message to www-xml-schema-comments. > > ACTION to Henry: Shepherd it from there. Continuing--we will drop this issue from our agenda. > > Norm says the TAG says we should talk to the CSS WG > about xml:id: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Aug/0005 > > But we have discussed this with the CSS WG, and they > added wording to the latest spec--see the final paragraph > of the section "5.9 ID selectors" at > http://www.w3.org/Style/css21-updates/WD-CSS21-20050613-20040225-diff/select or.html#id-selectors > where it mentions xml:id explicitly. > > ACTION to Norm: Point out the above to the TAG. ACTION continued. > > 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. ACTION continued. > > 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 continued. > 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 ACTION continued. > 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 PE document with all the resolutions > except a new one--see agenda item 11 below. > > We need to turn the PE document into an errata document. > > ACTION to DV: Produce a draft Errata document, using > http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata as a starting > point/template. > > There have been some more XInclude test suite questions > recently on the list: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2005Jul/ > ERH is fielding them to some extent, but it would be good > to have someone else (Richard, Daniel?) take a look too. > > ACTION to Richard: Take a look at the above exchange > and let us know if you think we need to respond. Richard believes ERH is correct and all the problems arose from a misunderstanding by the commentor on how the test suite works. We believe Elliotte has properly addressed the technical issues. All that is left is that 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: Add ERH's results to the XInclude IR. > 7. xml:id. > > The PR was published (2005 July 12) at > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-xml-id-20050712/ > and the PR period closed a couple weeks ago. > > The test suite is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xml-id/ > > The "central page" for the implementation report is > http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id-implementation.html > > Rec-ready draft is at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xmlid/xml-id.html > with a diff version at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xmlid/diff-20050906.html > and a DoC at > http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xml-id/pr-status/status-report.html The WG approves Norm's latest version which Norm has also published on public-xml-id. > Henry, when can we expect a director's decision? Henry tells us we probably do not need a PR telcon. The director's decision might be available next week. Norm would like to see xml:id be a Rec asap, so if doing PR around it would slow down Rec-dom, he'd prefer not to have any. ACTION to Henry: Give Norm a pubdate. ACTION to Norm: Draft a status for the Rec and produce the final Rec-ready version. > > 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. > > > [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/2005Aug/0016 > [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, 7 September 2005 15:31:18 UTC