- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:57:46 -0400
- To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <873bco4av9.fsf@nwalsh.com>
HTML attached.
W3C[1]
- DRAFT -
XML Core
26 Jul 2006
Agenda[2]
See also: IRC log[3]
Attendees
Present
Henry, Leonid, Norm, Konrad, Francois, Richard, Glenn, Jose,
Daniel
Regrets
Paul
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* Topics
1. Accept this agenda
2. Approval of minutes
3. C14N
4. xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs
5. XML Errata
6. Namespaces in XML
7. XInclude
8. Milestones for XLink 1.1 and C14N 1.1
9. Next Meeting
* Summary of Action Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0016.html
Henry: Please discuss milestone dates for XLink and C14N for draft charter
... XLink comment:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006AprJun/0001.html[5]
... And revised publication date for edited Recommendations
Accepted with those additions
Approval of minutes
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0054
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#tasks
Norm: that looks right to me
Any other administrivia? Document reviews?
None suggested.
C14N
We have a proposed note
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note
Konrad: Suggested text posted to the list; Richard replied and work is
underway.
<jose> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/c14n-note.html[9]
Konrad: Also trying to get familiar with publication rules.
... A diff will be available soon.
... Hopefully we'll be able to agree on this after I publish the updates.
Glenn: At this point, is it basically that when Konrad and Richard come to
an agreement we're ready to go?
Norm: It's been a while, I'll try to take another look.
Glenn: Every time wording has been proposed, it's kicked off another round
of discussion.
Norm: We've all had a few weeks off
Richard: I think we reached agreement about what the algorithm should be.
Glenn: Right, but we were discussing the actual wording
Richard: I sent in my comments, if those are accepted, I'll be happy.
Konrad: I'm not sure I understand the comments.
Glenn: So we believe we're at a point where there's candidate wording and
we're just about done
Norm: Do you understand the comments, Konrad?
Konrad: Yes, I think I do. I've just got one more action to do.
<jose> konrad, I can help you with the pubrules. It's much more easier
than you think
We should all read the next draft when it's published
xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs
We'll come back to this after the edited Recommendations are published
Topix: XLink
Norm: I've had no time to work on this. Maybe by late August.
XLink comment:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006AprJun/0001.html[10]
Henry: Boris says we haven't replied in four months and they need one.
Norm: Yeah, we should reply. I thought we would after the end of the
comment period, we've just been distracted by other things
... We might like XLink to say that support for xlink:actuate="onRequest"
is more than a should, but is that the sort of change we want to make in
1.1?
Henry: That's not how I read RFC 2119 SHOULD.
Richard: I think you could analyze each xlink:actuate and say something
more specific.
Henry: I don't agree with either of his conclusions. Without further
information, I don't know why you didn't do the SHOULD.
... His second suggestion is downright contrary to what the spec says.
... Either you should implement the SHOULD or give a reason why not.
... Other behavior is willfully unhelpful and we don't have to explicitly
outlaw that.
<fyergeau> RFC 2119: "SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED",
mean that there
<fyergeau> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
<fyergeau> particular item, but the full implications must be understood
and
<fyergeau> carefully weighed before choosing a different course."
DV: I think if you don't do "onRequest", you can't do "onLoad" instead.
Norm: I think I'd say something like, if you don't do onRequest (and you
have a good reason for not doing so), you might just display "Text"
without making it a link. I don't think there's any justification that
would allow you to ignore the onRequest and treat it as onLoad.
... Or at the very least, you better be able to say why.
Richard: I'm not sure I agree, you might have some really good reasons for
the proposed behavior (a device with no input capability, for example)
... Though I'm not sure that's sensible behavior...
XML Errata
Henry: With respect to the PERs, we opened a comment period got on the
order of a dozen reviews, all positive.
... One pointed out a few things we'd noticed ourselves and agreed to fix.
... PLH sent mail to Steve asking for permission to publish without a
call.
... We're waiting to hear from Steve; PLH will chase.
... Our original date was yesterday, which obviously didn't happen.
... We need four complete drafts in place (from Richard and Francois) and
a press release which the Team is working on.
... Richard and Francois, can you get drafts dated 8 August in place?
Richard: Not likely.
... I won't be able to do anything until about 5 August so 8 August isn't
a good choice.
Henry: Ok. We'll have to ask for a new date.
Richard: Incidentally, I did notice Konrad's message and I'll add his
fixes to the list
Francois: I've just started preparing the documents, but I'm not ready
yet. After 8 August should be doable.
... Paul's actions included DoC and I don't know if I'm supposed to do
that, and if yes, it's not clear what comments should go in there.
Henry: That must be stale actions from before the PER decisions.
Namespaces in XML
See above.
XInclude
DV: I haven't had a chance to finish my action yet.
Milestones for XLink 1.1 and C14N 1.1
Henry: In the charter being drafted, there are two deliverables:
... Recommendations for XLink 1.1 and C14N 1.1
... and at the moment the milestones show July 2006 for XLink 1.1 and
October 2006 for C14N.
... For XLink 1.1 there are PR and REC dates for July and September.
... What do we propose?
Norm: I propose September and December
Henry: For C14N, the dates are June and months thereafter
... I would think that we could go to September for FPWD
... Are we going to need to differentiate between FPWD and LC draft?
Glenn: If it was purely something from the Core WG, I'd probably hesitate.
But given that we have invited expertise, I'm much more comfortable so I
think we could go out with a LC first.
... I think we could have that by September.
Henry: I propose: September '06 for FPWD which is LC, October '06 for CR,
...
Some discussion of implementations
Henry: Ok, we need a two month CR then and we should be working on getting
implementations lined up sooner rather than later.
Glenn: We need two impl, right?
Henry: Yes.
Proposed: September for LC, October for CR, December for PR, and February
'07 for REC
Next Meeting
August 2 CANCELLED. Next meeting is August 9
Regrets: Konrad for 9 August.
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0016.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/26-xmlcore-irc
[5]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006AprJun/0001.html
[9] http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/c14n-note.html
[10]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006AprJun/0001.html
[11] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[11] version 1.127 (CVS
log[12])
$Date: 2006/07/26 15:52:33 $
Attachments
- text/html attachment: 26-xmlcore-minutes.html
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 15:58:03 UTC