Re: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 February 15

/ "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> was heard to say:
|> Thread 19--Schema issues 
|> ------------------------
|> Comments on the schema for xlink.
|> 
|> Henry thought about this and decided the commentor is wrong
|> and sent a reply.
|> 
|> However, the commentor didn't agree.
|> 
|> Henry replied again at
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
| 006JanMar/0096
|> and
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
| 006JanMar/0097
|> 
|> The commentor wishes to make an official dissent at:
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
| 006JanMar/0098
|> 
|> This closed this thread (with a dissent).

Ok.

|> Re: XLink 1.1: Charmod conformance
|> ----------------------------------
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
| 006JanMar/0048
|> Björn says XLink 1.1 should NFC-normalize IRIs.
|> 
|> Richard replied at:
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
| 006JanMar/0070
|> Bjoern replied at
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
| 006JanMar/0075
|> and Richard re-replied at
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
| 006JanMar/0089
|> and the thread ends there (as of the writing of this agenda).
|> 
|> We still need to close this thread. *****
|> 
|> We believe that our specs are correct as is, and perhaps
|> the Charmod spec could be clearer here, but that isn't
|> our remit.
|> 
|> ACTION to Francois:  Review this thread and send email
|> to the XML Core WG.
|> 
|> Unless Francois comes back and says we're wrong, we will
|> leave it as is and flag this issue as an outstanding dissent 
|> in the DoC, perhaps with a note that we've sent this issue
|> to I18N.
>
| Francois sent email at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Feb/0022
>
| Richard thinks XLink is the wrong place to require conformance
| to charmod since it's really the XML parser on top of which
| XLink is placed that need to be conformant.
>
| Francois doesn't think XLink needs to discuss normalization,
| but he thinks we can make XLink conformant to charmod by adding:
>
| "Implementations of XLink must conform to charmod.
| Content conforming to XLink must conform to charmod."
>
| Richard (and others) argue that charmod isn't really
| applicable to XLink, but we will put it in.
>
| Norm has a plan that he outlined--CONSENSUS to do that.
>
| ACTION to Norm:  Put this language into the spec.

Done.

| xlink:href requirements 
| -----------------------
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/0008
| Last message at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0063
>
| Change "xml string" to "character string".
>
| The meaning of our definition of href hasn't changed since
| Last Call though the wording has changed.
>
| ACTION to Norm:  Take another stab at answering this question.

No response.

| error handling 
| ---------------
| Last message is at
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0002
| and we don't understand this really.
>
| We don't talk about reporting errors, we just say
| some elements have xlink semantics and others don't.
>
| Norm and Richard (mostly) discussed this.
>
| ACTION to Norm:  Try to email back again to try to see
| what it is he is getting at.

Anne would prefer that we ignore unexpected markup:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0107

|> "URI reference" "checking"
|> --------------------------
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
| 006JanMar/0060
|> Norm will strike the "because it's impractical" wording
|> and replace it with a note that says checking isn't required.
|> 
|> Henry replied to Bjoern's message:
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
| 006JanMar/0071
|> Bjoern was unsatisfied at
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
| 006JanMar/0081
|> Henry re-replied at:
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
| 006JanMar/0083
|> and the thread ends there (as of the writing of this agenda).
|> 
|> Henry's penultimate email asked if this should generate
|> an official objection (which question was never answered),
|> so we can handle this thread the same as the others in
|> this category (which I assume will be to generate an
|> official objection).
|> 
|> Henry suggested wording of a note to be added to the draft:
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Feb/0011
|> 
|> ACTION to Norm:  Update the draft accordingly.
|> 
|> We still have not heard from the commentor, so I suggest
|> we need to flag this as a "dissent".

Done.

|> "XML document" undefined
|> ------------------------
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
| 006JanMar/0067
|> 
|> We now think the issue is whether a linkbase can be
|> anything that can be converted into an infoset or
|> does it have to be an XML document.
|> 
|> We just say "xml documents" in XInclude.  Since this 
|> wording is in XLink 1.0, we will leave it as is.
|> 
|> Norm sent email to the commentor pointing to XInclude:
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
| 006JanMar/0093
|> but there has been no response as of this writing.
|> 
|> Close and record an official dissent.

Ok.

This stands unanswered:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0078

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.