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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 January 18

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:40:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302020403A3@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Ravi, CDAC (on IRC)
Daniel  xx:15

[6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 10]


Absent organizations
IBM (with regrets)
John Cowan (with regrets)
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).


Norm can only be on a short time next week.

> 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

Paul did reserve a dial in slot on Zakim.

> 2b.  IRI wording in xml:base et al.
> 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.
> Francois sent some suggestions at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jan/0008
> Henry pointed out the XML Schema WG was working on anyURI:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.html#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 long 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.

XML Resource Identifier is the term Francois defined.

Francois' email is at:
[not yet available, but see
for Wed, Jan 18]
This will go into XLink 1.1 as a separate section.  
Then we can do it as an erratum for XML 1.0 and 1.1.
Then we would produce XML 1.0 4th Ed and 1.1 2nd Ed.
XInclude and xml:base (and probably NS 1.1) we do 
errata pointing them to the new editions of XML or 
if we're in a bigger hurry, errata quoting the whole 
text.  (We don't want to point the lower specs to XLink.)  

ACTION to Richard:  Look at this wrt putting into NS 1.1.

We do have a suggestion from Murata-san at
that we process such an erratum against NS 1.0.

We're not sure what we think about this yet.

> 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/2
> 005JulSep/
> and a DoC at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/xlink11/lc-status/status-report.html
> Thread 19--Schema issues 
> ------------------------
> Comments on the schema for xlink.
> ACTION to Henry [due Jan 25]:  Think about and reply to this one.
> We have taken care of all other 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.

On schedule.

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

In progress.  Norm prefers Friday afternoon.

> 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.

ACTION to Paul:  Draft a CR request.

> 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

There is a namespace PE:

Richard's suggested resolutions are at

CONSENSUS with Richard's suggested resolutions.

These would be errata to both NS 1.0 and 1.1.

ACTION to Richard:  Update the NS PE doc and Errata documents.

> 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.

Glenn did so at:

The email includes a discussion on whether an erratum to C14N 1.0
or a C14N 1.1 would be less disruptive.  There was no consensus
among the discussants of this thread.

The XML Core WG has consensus to stick with a C14N 1.1 as chartered.

Henry points out we could produce a 1.1 and use the old identifier.
But Norm doesn't think we can do that.

We seem to be ready to produce a first WD of C14N 1.1.

ACTION to Glenn:  Produce an actual first editor's draft of C14N 1.1.

> 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/0010
> [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, 18 January 2006 16:42:05 UTC

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