Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 December 20

Attendees
---------
 Paul
 Ravi (on IRC)
 Konrad
 Glenn
 Norm
 Richard 
 Henry 
 Daniel 
 John  xx:16

Guests for the C14N discussion
------------------------------
 Jose off at xx:48
 Thomas  xx:17-xx:20

[8 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
------- 
Leonid

Absent organizations
--------------------
Lew Shannon 
François Yergeau 

> 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 Snapshot for TR page (last call version; outdated)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.

ACTION to Norm continued.

> 
> ---
> 
> 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.

ACTION ongoing.

> 
> 
> 3.  C14N 
> 
> Our three C14N documents had been first published in September:
> 
> 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 C14N 1.1 LC and the updated version of the Notes are due to
> be published December 20th per the publication request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0041
> 

The C14N 1.1 LC and the two notes were published just now.

----

Konrad raised an issue about Exclusive XML Canonicalization at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0043

We need to take a closer look at this to see what if anything we
want to do about this.  Perhaps it's just something to send to
the XML Security WG when they start up next year.

> 
> 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 had a successful PER telcon, and the pub request for the 
> PER was sent at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0044
> and it is supposed to be published December 20.
> 

The XML Base PER was published just now.

> 
> 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
> 

ACTION to Paul:  Update and resend a draft PR request.

> 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.
> 

Done.

> ACTION to Norm:  Follow up in email on:
> XLink conformance criteria question, Boris Zbarsky 

Continued.

> 
> 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.

Continued.

> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Provide a few more tests for the test suite.

Continued.

> 
> 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.

We're talking about role and arcrole and title attributes.

We decided we want these attribute values to be XML Resource
Identifiers, and Norm suggested specific wording for this:

The value of the role or arcrole attribute is an XML Resource
Identifier.  The identifier must not be relative.

CONSENSUS on that wording.

ACTION to Norm:  Put that wording into the latest draft.

> 
> 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.
> 

Done. See http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/

ACTION to Norm:  Make a diff version.

> 
> 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.

ACTION to John:  Send email to the list on the two editorial 
changes Richard suggested.

> 
> 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/2006Dec/0006
>

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 17:03:13 UTC