- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:29:11 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, June 28, 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. TLR regrets until August 2nd. Jose regrets until July 26th. Richard regrets for 5 and 12 July. 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 Due to various schedules, this would now not likely happen until an August timeframe, and Thomas questioned whether we still wanted to do this at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0045 ---- 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. 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, our latest consensus is to avoid normalization since there are ambiguous edge cases. 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. Richard proposes that xml:base="" should be a no-op. This avoids some issues associated with same document references as discussed with Roy Fielding. What about xml:base="#foo"? On the same grounds, it shouldn't be treated as a same-document reference. It's no different from any other case where you put a fragid on xml:base. In 3986 it's clear what the consequences are: if you derive a base URI from a URI ref, then you're supposed to discard the fragid before you treat it as a base URI. So "#foo" is also effectively a no-op. What do we have to say in C14N 1.1 after we make the erratum to xml:base? Richard proposes that C14N avoid stating the entire algorithm, but instead refer to 3986 and note the changes, as proposed in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0012 If the result of ".. normalization" results in an empty string, it can either be left or discarded. Konrad proposes that C14N always discard any xml:base="" CONSENSUS: We will refer to 3986 and describe only the differences. Konrad sent his latest proposed wording at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0032 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 HST: The situation is not clear enough wrt the test suite to allow us to request the. [truncated sentence as in last week's minutes]. ACTION to HST: Move Norm's material into the test suite page. 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]. XML 1.0/1.1 PERs were published on 2006 June 14 with a PER end date of July 12. PLH: There an issue with references to 2396 vrs 3986. Also, the date on the IRI spec in XML Namespaces 1.1 needs to be updated s/October 26, 2003/January 2005/. And the URI for RFC 3987 is http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt. The date for XML 1.1 will also need an update (maybe at REC time). 7. Namespaces in XML. NS 1.0/1.1 PERs were published on 2006 June 14 with a PER end date of July 12. There have been several editorial issues raised as summarized by Richard at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0044 When referring to the XML spec, should we refer to dated versions or not? ACTION to Richard: Prepare new editors' copies of the two specs with the editorial changes required by the comments other than Anne's. ACTION to Richard: Record Anne's issue/proposed resolution in the Namespace PE document. 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 The current plan is to publish XInclude 2e and send it for PER during the last week of June. DV reports that there are a few changes in the XInlude errata that could benefit from a test suite. ACTION: DV to propose new XInclude tests. 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://www.w3.org/2006/06/21-xmlcore-minutes.html [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, 26 June 2006 21:33:46 UTC