- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 08:50:38 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, June 7, from 08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka 11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka 15:00-16:00 UTC 16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK 17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe 20:30-21:30 in most of India on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#. We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 . See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents and other information. If you have additions to the agenda, please email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon. Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it at the beginning of the call. Agenda ====== 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. 3. C14N At the f2f, we decided to produce a W3C WG Note documenting the current situation and issues and problems. Thomas wrote an outline of this note at http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note ACTION to Thomas: Produce a first editors draft of the C14N note by Monday, June 5th. The latest editor's draft of C14N 1.1 is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/05/WD-xml-c14n11-20060510.html We discussed the xml:base wording in 2.4. Richard provided a suggested solution at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0014 Konrad posted to the list some examples and new wording based on Glenn's draft and Richard's wording at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0024 Jose sent followup email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0041 The issues remain only when the document doesn't have a base URI. And the key thing for C14N is just to get the same result all the time. So there seem to be three possibilities when the document has no base URI: 1. delete all xml:base attributes 2. just do simple concatenation with xml:base attributes 3. do concatenation with some normalization (e.g., handling .. and maybe . segments) Though previously we were leaning toward attempting some normalization, upon review last week, we were leaning toward not attempting normalization. Richard came up with an example where normalization isn't feasible: <one> <two xml:base="http://example.org"> <three xml:base=""> <four xml:base="x/y"/> </three> </two> </one> Suppose we cut out <three>, there is no value that can be put on <four> to get the same result. In Richard's case, even concatenation won't give the right result. But all these problems only exist when the base URI of the document is not known. ACTION to Richard: Review the wording in Konrad's email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0024 Richard points out that the XML Base spec isn't clear what should happen with xml:base="", and we might need to issue an erratum to XML Base for this. ACTION to Richard: Review XML Base and make a suggestion as to what we should do to that spec regarding xml:base="". There has been an ongoing email thread at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0049 ff Richard: If the value of the xml:base is interpreted as a URI reference, then xml:base="" brings the base back to the current document. And in section 3, XML Base says that the value of xml:base is interpreted as a URI reference. So xml:base="#foo" and xml:base="" both reset the base URI to be that of the current document. 4. xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs. At the f2f, we had CONSENSUS to change the xml:base spec to make it clear we allow IRIs as the value of xml:base. We also want to allow IRIs in the infoset [baseURI] information item. One paragraph in the Infoset says the baseURI may have unescaped characters, but elsewhere it says the baseURI follows XML Base which points to RFC 2396. If we change XML Base, we shouldn't have to change the Infoset spec much. 5. XLink update. XLink is now in CR--published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ Norm sent some email about his test suite at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0066 6. 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]. Francois has developed almost-ready editor's drafts of both XML 1.0 4th Ed and XML 1.1 2nd Ed at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/05/xml10-4e/PER-xml-2006mmdd-review.htm l and http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/05/xml11-2e/PER-xml11-2006mmdd-review.h tml There are also non-diff XHTML versions (remove "-review") and XML versions, with all ancillary files in place to render them. ACTION to Francois: Edit the existing Implementation Reports (e.g., so that they don't just refer to 3rd Ed) and edit the latest PER drafts to point to these (existing) IRs. ACTION to Paul (during PER): Ask implementors to confirm that their implementations remain conformant given the changes we are making to the latest editions. Henry suggests we do XML/NS 1.0/1.1 in one telcon on Friday June 9th. We should shoot for a publication date of June 14 and a PER end date of July 31. ACTION to Henry: Set the time for the telcon. Paul sent updated draft PER requests at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0070 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0071 ACTION to Francois, Richard: Update the drafts to reflect pubdate of 14 June 2006. Richard should update status sections (see those in Francois' drafts). Richard wrote some tests for the latest errata, announced at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0002 7. Namespaces in XML. Richard has updated PER-ready editor's drafts of both 1.0 and 1.1 new editions: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-10-2e.html http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-11-2e.html There are also diff versions: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-10-2e-diff.ht ml http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-11-2e-diff.ht ml Paul sent updated draft PER requests at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0072 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0073 8. 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 Daniel has drafted XInclude 2nd Edition with all the errata (including the IRI one) applied. Result is http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/04/XInclude/REC-xinclude-20060423.html with a diff version at http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/04/XInclude/REC-xinclude-20060423-review.html Still need to handle errata document for the new edition and other front matter. Paul sent a draft PER request at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0044 ACTION to Paul: Check status and such. 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.tx t 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. Chris and Henry also are backing "xpointer scheme" down from "registered" to "pending" in the registry. 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/2006May/0068 [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 Monday, 5 June 2006 12:51:20 UTC