- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 11:26:21 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Paul Ravi on IRC Glenn xx:10 Norm Leonid Henry Daniel xx:07 Guests for the C14N discussion ------------------------------ Konrad Lanz [5 organizations (5 with proxies) present out of 10] Regrets ------- Lew Richard Thomas Absent organizations -------------------- Univ of Edinburgh with regrets Lew Shannon with regrets François Yergeau John Cowan Richard gives regrets for next week. > 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. > > 2a. We discussed the future of the XML Core WG at our f2f at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml-f2f-20060302-minutes.h tm#futures > > Our latest draft charter is at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/03/xml-core-wg-charter-200607.html > This has been "handed over" to the XML CG and W3T. > > > 2b. Update of the XML Namespace RDDL document. > > Francois and John haved developed an updated version of what's at > http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace > The suggested new version is at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar /att-0079/namespace.xhtml CONSENSUS to go with Francois' latest modulo any fixes Henry needs to make to ensure it is valid. ACTION to Henry: Update what's at http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace with what's at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/att-0079/namespace.xhtml modulo any necessary changes to make things valid. Henry did raise an issue about an XML Schema homage to Jon Bosak (ref xml:Father). The status quo is not to have such mentioned in the XML RDDL document. Unless someone objects by next week, we will stick with the status quo. > > 3. C14N > > Glenn created an editor's draft of C14N 1.1 which is up at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/WD-xml-c14n11 > > We had some discussion at the f2f--see > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml-f2f-20060302-minutes.htm#c14n > > At the f2f, we decided to produce a W3C WG Note documenting > the current situation and issues and problems. > > Thomas posted his f2f notes at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0026 > > ACTION to Thomas: Generate a draft of the Note. > > We discussed details of how we might be able to > handle xml:base in C14N, pointing out that the > algorithm for handling xml:base cannot be concatenation. > > Q: If you want to join two relative URIs is it the same > as the merge path function? Or how should it work? > > Konrad posted an email explaining our requirements and > asking our question: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2006Mar/0002 > > Larry Masinter replied at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2006Mar/0003 Larry seems to say we can do concatenation. We might see if Thomas can help with the wording here. ACTION to Glenn: Go through past suggestions and recent email and make a suggestion on how to proceed. > > 4. xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs. > > At the f2f, we had CONSENSUS to change the > xml:base spec to make it clear we allow IRIs as the > value of xml:base. We also want to allow IRIs in the > infoset [baseURI] information item. > > One paragraph in the Infoset says the baseURI may > have unescaped characters, but elsewhere it says > the baseURI follows XML Base which points to RFC 2396. > If we change XML Base, we shouldn't have to change > the Infoset spec much. > > > 5. XLink update. > > XLink is now in CR--published at > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ > > Norm sent some email about his test suite at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0066 > > > 6. 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]. > > Re. PE 148, Henry posted a version for 1.1 at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml > > ACTION to Francois: Merge the mustifications into XML 1.0. > > We resolved some other PE at the f2f. > > We decided to resolve PE140 by saying that we have > fiddled this wording enough and we aren't going to > fiddle it any more for fear of making it worse. > > We decided to resolve PE142 by saying that we have > fiddled this wording enough and we aren't going to > fiddle it any more for fear of making it worse. > > ACTION to François: Update the PE document accordingly > for PE 140 and 142. > > We note that the resolution to PE141 has already made > a wording change in this area, but Richard pointed out > that the wording should be: > > In a document with an external subset or parameter > entity references... > > (no "external"). > > That is, we made a mistake in the earlier resolution > of PE141. We should update the resolution of PE141 > to read as shown above. > > ACTION to Francois: Update the PE and Errata documents. > > With respect to PE143, after production [60], we should > add a reference to the "No External Entity References" WFC. > > ACTION to François: Update the Errata and PE document > accordingly for PE143. > > > 7. 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. > > ACTION to Richard: Draft the 2nd edition of NS 1.0 > per the above plan (perhaps by creating a single XML > source document for 1.0 and 1.1 using some conditionals). > > ACTION to Richard: Draft a NS 1.1 2nd Edition including > this IRI work and the outstanding NS 1.1 errata which, to > date, includes only the issue about preventing abuses of xmlns. > > Richard made a start and sent email at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0043 > > He will make a diff between 1.1 and 1.0 2nd Ed. > > We will have an appendix in 1.0 explaining the diffs > between 1.0 1st Ed and 1.0 2nd Ed. (It will be the > appendix from 1.1 minus the 1.1-specific changes.) > > > 8. 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 > > ACTION to Daniel: Update the PE about IRIs for XInclude. > > ACTION to Daniel: Draft XInclude 2nd Edition with all > the errata (including the IRI one) applied. > > > 9. 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. > > > 10. Henry raises that RFC 3023 is out of date and the draft > replacement has expired. > > Chris gave a status update at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0070 > > > [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/2006Mar/0075 > [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 > [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-rdfa-primer-20060310/ > [12] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-rdfa-primer-20060310/#id69192 >
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2006 15:26:57 UTC