W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > January 2006

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 January 11

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:01:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30201F10308@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Ravi, CDAC (on IRC)
François off at xx:47

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


Absent organizations
John Cowan 

> 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).


> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> We are planning a f2f at the Technical Plenary 27 Feb-3 March 2006
> in Cannes, France.  The XML Core WG is currently scheduled to
> meet Thursday and Friday, March 2-3 of that week.
> TP2006 registration is open until 17 February 2006:
>     http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TP2006/
> The TP Week overview page is at
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/12/allgroupoverview.html
> Expected:
> Paul
> Norm
> Daniel
> Richard
> Philippe
> ---
> Chris Lilley asks about xml:base and IRI:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0004
> Norm thinks we should change the bib ref from 2986
> to 3986.  Section 3.1 should say any xml:base should
> first have spaces escaped to %20 and then have the
> IRI changed to a URI per 3987.
> We should have uniform language for XLink 1.1, XLink 1.0,
> xml:base, xinclude, XML 1.0, and XML 1.1 (as errata for 
> all but XLink 1.1).
> There is some question as to whether we should bother
> to make an erratum for XLink 1.0, but we did not resolve
> this.
> We basically want to put the text that is in XLink 1.1 into
> the other specs.
> It's possible that the language in XLink 1.1 might need
> tweaking so that the exact same language will fit into
> all the specs.
> ACTION to Francois [due this Wed]:  Look at the language 
> in XLink 1.1 and suggest some version of it that works in 
> all the relevant specs.

Francois sent some suggestions at

Henry pointed out the XML Schema WG was working on anyURI:

We talked about pulling the necessary wording into a normative
appendix in XML 1.0 3rd Ed and XML 1.1 (as errata in both cases).
Then we could reference that appendix in xml:base, XInclude, etc.

We also said we could just make it section 4.2.3.  As lont as it
is referenceable by other specs.

Richard urged Francois to define a term for the thing which, after
escaping, becomes an IRI reference, e.g., the value of an href attribute.

ACTION to Francois:  Send another proposal to the XML Core list.

> 3.  XLink update.
> The LC WD of XLink 1.1 has been published:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/
> We have comments at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/
> ACTION to Norm [due this Wed]:  Update the DoC with the latest status.

Norm had updated
before the call.

> Thread 19--Schema issues 
> ------------------------
> Comments on the schema for xlink.
> ACTION to Henry [due Jan 25]:  Think about and reply to this one.
> We hope to get closure on all the remaining threads this week.

22. [xlink11] error handling 
Dup of 13.

23. [xlink11] event handling of nested links 
We aren't telling DOM implementation what to do
even in the simple cases, much less in this
complex case.

24.  XLink 1.1 WD: Optional type attribute 
Editorially there are a few places in the spec that
imply the type attribute isn't optional, but it is.

DECISION:  editorial.

ACTION to Norm:  As editor, fix.

25. Comments from the I18N Core WG on XLink 1.1 
The only remaining open issue was about escaping
the caret, and in fact new wording will be escaping
the caret.  (So this part of the comment is accepted.)

26. SVG WG Last Call review of XLink 1.1 
Editorial--consensus for Editor to make changes.

27.  I just want to use a link! What now? 
Consensus to reject as out of scope or not a
comment--Norm awaiting response.

28. Good start - but simplify the system !!! 
Consensus to reject as out of scope or not a
comment--Norm awaiting response.

That takes care of all open issues except Henry's 
action on Thread 19--Schema issues.

Note we will want to add a section or appendix to 
XLink 1.1 that is a copy of the section on IRIs that 
Francois is developing.

We should have a draft for Jan 25th to review.
It should be a draft CR.

ACTION to Henry:  Try to schedule an LC-to-CR transition
call for Jan 27th (or 26th).

For exit criteria, Norm suggests an implementation that 
converts XLink 1.1 documents into XLink 1.0 documents.  
All this would have to do is fill in the type attribute.

We also have SVG already defaulting the type attribute.

We hope we'll be able to run CR from Feb 1 to Mar 1 so
that it will end just as we're meeting at the Tech Plen.

> 4. 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]. 
> ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document including
> issues raised on public-xml-testsuite@w3.org.
> JohnC did a scan for MUST/SHOULD and reported at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0015
> John thought most of the mays were not official mays.
> This is now PE 148.
> ACTION to Henry [due Jan 31]:  Review the MAYs again and 
> create a marked up version with changes.
> 5. 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.
> Ongoing ACTION to Richard:  Produce a draft for NS1.0 2nd Ed.
> We note that the IRI spec is now finished-RFC 3987-so 
> we have to issue an erratum for NS 1.1 for this.  We
> discussed some details of this under the XLink discussion:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/02/xml-f2f-20050303-minutes.htm#xlink
> Briefly, 3987 does have some wording (the "MAY" paragraph) 
> about what used to be called unwise characters.  For the 
> NS 1.1 erratum, the MAY paragraph doesn't apply since 
> namespace names cannot have the unwise characters.  (The 
> MAY paragraph will be needed for XML 1.* system identifiers.)
> ACTION to Richard:  Process an erratum to NS 1.1 to
> refer to RFC 3987: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt
> 6. 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 
> 7. xml:id is a Recommendation, published 2005 Sept 9:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-xml-id-20050909/
> 8.  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.
> 9.  C14N is listed in our charter:
>  Canonical XML version 1.1
>  The work on xml:id uncovered some inconsistencies
>  in Canonical XML version 1.0 (see xml:id CR,
>  Appendix C, "Impacts on Other Standards"). The
>  Working Group will produce a new version of
>  Canonical XML to address those inconsistencies,
>  as well as others that might be discovered at a
>  later stage.
> We have CONSENSUS that we have been chartered to do a 1.1
> and that we should not try to do this as an erratum.
> We are not sure how best to do this as a 1.1.  We should try
> to elaborate the possible ways of handling this and ask the
> C14N community how best to go about this.  For example, if
> we create a new namespace for C14N 1.1, what do we say the 
> old namespace means?  We'd like to avoid the flak we are
> getting for XML 1.1.
> We should probably use the existing mailing list
> w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org to gather opinions.
> Glenn posted an email to w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org explaining
> we are doing a 1.1 and asking for how we can minimize disruption:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Dec/0001
> There have been some responses.  
> ACTION to Glenn [due this Wed]:  Summarize and send email 
> to the XML Core list.
> 10.  Henry added a "forking QNames" item:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Nov/0000
> We had some discussion last week.
> Norm argues that we should object to the use of the
> QName syntax for things that aren't QNames.  He also
> objects to the invention of a new mechanism for declaring
> things that look like namespaces when they aren't really.
> Norm is still trying to understand whether there is an
> issue yet, and he needs to wait until they publish a
> document to be sure.
> ACTION to Norm:  Raise this concern at the TAG level
> at the appropriate time.
> 11.  Henry raises that RFC 3023 is out of date and the draft
> replacement has expired.  Henry says there is a new draft
> expected soon (Murata-san will send something to Chris to
> publish soon).  
> Chris is still hoping that he and Murata will be able
> to publish a new ID for 3023bis soon.
> [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/2006Jan/0004
> [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
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 17:03:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:30 UTC