Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 December 6

Attendees
---------
Paul
Ravi (on IRC)
Konrad
Glenn
Leonid
Richard 
Henry  off at xx:22
Daniel 

Guests for the C14N discussion
------------------------------
Jose 
Thomas

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

Regrets
------- 
Norm
John

Absent organizations
--------------------
Lew Shannon 
François Yergeau 
John Cowan (with regrets)


> 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.
> 
> The QA working group asked Ian Hickson of the Web Application 
> Formats WG to request that the XML Core working group review 
> the XBL2 specification that is currently in Last Call:
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/xbl2/Overview.html?content-type=text/html
> Editor's copy (more up to date)
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060907/
> Snapshot for TR page (last call version; outdated)
> 
> fwiw, here are a few reviews/notes one might want to
> read for some other XML Activity members' thoughts:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0002
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0012
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Review this WD.
> 
> ---
> 
> Issue on attribute canonicalization raised by Norm at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0020
> and by Eric Prud'hommeaux at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0019
> 
> We figure if this is RDF's way to quote attributes, 
> it's fine with us, as it's RDF-specific.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Reply to Eric with this and see if we've
> misunderstood something.
> 
> 
> 3.  C14N 
> 
> Our three C14N documents have been published:
> 
> Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0)
>      W3C Working Draft 15 September 2006
> This version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-C14N-issues-20060915/
> Latest version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/C14N-issues/
> 
> Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML Environment
>      W3C Working Draft 15 September 2006
> This version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DSig-usage-20060915/
> Latest version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/DSig-usage/
> 
> Canonical XML1.1
>      W3C Working Draft 15 September 2006
> This version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20060915
> Latest version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n11
> 
> ---
> 
> The latest C14N 1.1 editors draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/WD-xml-c14n11.html
> 
> Konrad sent in some editorial comments at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Nov/0005
> 
> 
> Glenn has provided an updated draft (dated Nov 27) at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/WD-xml-c14n11.html
> 

ACTION to Glenn: Add a reference in the C14N 1.1 References
section to the Known Issues note at http://www.w3.org/TR/C14N-issues/.

ACTION to Glenn: Produce and pubrules check a Last Call draft
of C14N 1.1.

> We plan to approve C14N 1.1 for LC publication at this week's 
> telcon and then publish the LC in mid-December in concert
> with the XML Base PER.

CONSENSUS to take C14N 1.1 to Last Call.

ACTION to Paul:  Submit the transition and pub request for C14N 1.1.

Thomas requests that we stay in Last Call until the proposed
XML Security/Signatures Maintenance WG can be chartered (in 
early Q2) and they can look at it.

> 
> Jose suggested we republish the two WG Notes at the same time.
> We forsee no changes to them except some references to new versions
> of C14N 1.1 and XML Base.  
> 
> ACTION to Jose and Thomas:  Prepare updated drafts of the two Notes.
> 

Jose says the Known Issues note requires no changes.

Thomas raises the issue about an identifier to use for C14N 1.1.

We'll plan to use the date space URI http://www.w3.org/2006/12/xml-c14n11
and make that a redirect to the latest draft of C14N 1.1.

ACTION to Thomas:  Create that URI and reflect it in the note.

> Paul has pre-announced the upcoming LC for C14N 1.1 at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Nov/0017
> 
> 
> 4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs.
> 
> The latest draft is at
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/11/xmlbase-2e
> and this has been announced to the W3C and the public, e.g.:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2006OctDec/0061
> 
> We will plan to go to PER in mid-December.
> 
> Michael Kay at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006OctDec/0014
> suggests this is too big a change for an erratum.
> 
> Richard argues this isn't a change, but Michael disagrees.
> 
> We aren't sure if this is really an implementation issue
> for Michael or just an edge case process question.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Chat with Michael during XML 2006.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Schedule a PER call the week of December 11th.

ACTION to Henry continued--shoot for morning Dec 14th.

> We need to develop a written response to all of Michael's points.
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Draft such a response.

Richard drafted suggested responses (not actual wording) at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0003 ff

We believe we have answers to all Michael's issues except
the big one about whether this can be an erratum for which
we are waiting for Norm.

Richard provided an updated XML Base at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/
with the changes in response to Michael Kay's comments 
highlighted in BLUE.

We still need a good response to leading and trailing spaces
issue.  Richard suggests we don't say anything about this now,
but record it as a potential future erratum.

ACTION to Richard:  Send an official response to Michael and
see if he accepts it or not.

CONSENSUS to request PER on XML Base.

ACTION to Paul:  Submit the transition request for XML Base PER.

> 
> 
> 5.  XLink update.
> 
> The XLink CR was published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ 
> 
> Paul wrote a draft PR request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0001
> 
> Norm posted a DoC at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/xlink11-doc.html
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC to remove the two non-XLink comments.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Follow up in email on:
> XLink conformance criteria question, Boris Zbarsky 
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Post to the WG mailing list something to
> show that any valid XLink 1.1 document can be programmatically 
> converted into an equivalent XLink 1.0 document.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Provide a few more tests for the test suite.
> 
> The old version XLink in section 5.5, we talk about values
> of href attributes.
> 
> In the new version, we talk about IRIs and XML Resource 
> Identifiers and other ways of encoding.  So it's unclear
> now what to do about spaces in href attributes.  Compare
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/#link-semantics and the
> wording above it in section 5.4.1 at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/#xml-resource-identifier
> 
> Norm thinks instead of spaces, we should now say non-URI
> characters. 
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Make a suggestion how best to fix this.
> 
> Also, nowhere do we say that conversion from an XML Resource
> Identifier to an IRI must occur as late as possible.
> Suggested new wording:
> 
>  If required, the IRI reference resulting from converting
>  an XML Resource Identifier can be converted to a
>  URI reference by following the prescriptions of
>  Section 3.1 of [RFC 3987].
> 
>  The conversion from an XML Resource Identifiers to an
>  IRI must be performed only when absolutely necessary and
>  as late as possible in a processing chain.  In particular,
>  neither the process of converting a relative XML Resource
>  Identifier to an absolute one nor the process of passing
>  an XML Resource Identifier to a process or software component
>  responsible for dereferencing it should trigger escaping.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Implement the new wording in XLink 1.1.
> 
> 
> 6. XML 1.0/1.1 4th/2nd Editions published 2006 August 16:
> 
>  Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816
> 
>  Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document per last telcon's
> decisions.
> 
> On PE 157, John sent email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0036
> with his suggested response and a question for the WG:
> 
> > Should we add specific references to UTF-16BE, UTF-16LE, CESU-8,
> > etc. etc. to 4.3.3?  If so, we might as well remove "We consider the
> > first case first" from Appendix F; it's more than obvious.
> 
> We agreed that, according to the spec, such a character is not a BOM.
> 
> Henry suggested we should provide an explanation, but he's not sure
> if it should go in the spec or just to the commentor.
> 
> We will pick this back up later when John is on a call.
> 
> 
> 7. Namespaces in XML 1.0/1.1 2nd Editions published 2006 August 16:
> 
>  Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Second Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816
> 
>  Namespaces in XML 1.1 (Second Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names11-20060816
> 
> Richard has recorded Anne's issue/proposed resolution at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata.html#NPE27
> 
> 
> 8.  XInclude 1.0 Second Edition has been published:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xinclude-20061115/
> 
> 
> 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 has gotten the source and made the changes.
> 
> There is a draft at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-02.txt
> that can be reviewed now with comments sent to the XML Core
> mailing list and/or Chris Lilley.
> 
> Paul sent some comments on 3023bis to the XML CG at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Apr/0026
> 
> Henry says Chris is going to take the XML CG input outlined at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Apr/0019
> and produce another draft.
> 
> We will now await a new draft from Chris.
> 
> 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/2006Nov/0020
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 16:49:00 UTC