Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 April 19

Attendees
---------
 Paul
 Ravi on IRC
 Norm
 Richard
 Henry

Guests for the C14N discussion
------------------------------
Konrad Lanz  
Thomas R

[5 organizations (5 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------  
Leonid
JohnC
Glenn  

Absent organizations
--------------------
IBM (with regrets)
John Cowan (with regrets)
Daniel Veillard
François Yergeau
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.
> 
> 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.

Done

> 
> 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
> saying 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.

Glenn made a pass at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Apr/att-0009/WD-xml-c14n11-20060409.html

Jose made some comments at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Apr/0011

Konrad asked about what needs to happen with digsig.

ACTION to Konrad:  Write up the new wrinkle with 4.3.1 in digsig
where something is only applied to the signed info and references 
would need to have an explicit change to something. [the scribe
didn't get the details, but Konrad will send email with details].

> 
> 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.

ACTIONs to François continued.

> 
> 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.

ACTION to Daniel continued.

> 
> 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' latest status update is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Apr/0000

There has been more progress.

Chris has gotten the source and made the changes.
He plans to open it up for public review April 26th.

When 3023bis becomes a reality, we might have some
specs that need updating for the reference, but we
don't expect any major changes.

> 
> [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/2006Apr/0006
> [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, 19 April 2006 15:24:17 UTC