Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 March 15

Attendees
---------
Paul
Ravi on IRC
Glenn  xx:09
Leonid
Richard
Henry
François 
Daniel  
JohnC
Lew  off at xx:33

Guests
------
Konrad Lanz   off at xx:34

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

Regrets
-------  
Norm
Jose Kahan
Thomas Roessler

Absent organizations
--------------------


> 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).

Accepted.

> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 
> We discussed the future of the XML Core WG at our f2f at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml-f2f-20060302-minutes.htm#futures
> 
> The WG had CONSENSUS with the decision taken at the f2f
> which was to write our new (post June) charter to finish 
> up what we are doing and maintaining the existing specs 
> without adding anything new.  We would plan to have telcons 
> reduced to once a month.  
> 
> Paul informed the XML CG of this decision:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Mar/0001
> 
> Ongoing ACTION to Paul, Norm, Henry:  Implement this 
> decision in the upcoming new WG charter.
> 
> 
> 3.  C14N 
> 
> Glenn created an editor's draft of C14N 1.1 which is up at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/WD-xml-c14n11
> 
> We had some discussion at the f2f--see
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml-f2f-20060302-minutes.htm#c14n
> The discussion continues in email.
> 
> Note that John Boyer, Thomas Roessler, Jose Kahan, and
> Konrad Lanz to the XML Core WG mailing list and are 
> expected to dial in for these discussions.  We will
> take this topic near the beginning of the telcon to
> allow them to drop off as we get to other topics.
> 
> ACTION to John Boyer (and others): Send comments on the 
> the latest C14N 1.1 editor's draft to the XML Core WG list.
> 
> At the f2f, we decided to produce a W3C WG Note documenting 
> the current situation and issues and problems.
> 
> Thomas posted his f2f notes at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0026
> 
> ACTION to Thomas and John: Generate a draft of the Note.

Konrad was on the call and raised the issue of
how to handle xml:base for C14N.  He felt that
one can handle xml:base appropriately for C14N.

Henry suggests we can use the defn of the baseURI
property to define how to handle xml:base in C14N.

We discussed details of how we might be able to
handle xml:base in C14N, pointing out that the
algorithm for handling xml:base cannot be concatenation.

Henry has outlined one possible approach to getting
it right at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0005

During this call, Henry mailed a summary of the current status
and suggested resolution:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0033

We will continue this discussion in email.


> 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.
> 
> We DECIDED at the f2f to take XLink to CR.
> 
> We still need to put exit criteria into the Status 
> of the document.
> 
> ACTION to Norm: Add exit criteria to the draft.

ACTION to Norm continued.

> At the f2f, we also decided we should augment the wording 
> that François suggested (and that we are putting into all 
> the specs including XLink) to describe the resolution 
> algorithm for relative XML Resource Identifiers. It should 
> parallel section 6.5 of section RFC 3987.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Modify the XLink draft accordingly
> and send out separate email with the new wording.

ACTION to Norm continued.

> ACTION to Francois:  Incorporate Norm's new wording into
> one message that gives the new wording for all the specs
> we are changing.
> 
> Paul had sent a draft CR request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jan/0019
> but he needs to update it.
> 
> ACTION to Paul: Prepare an (updated) CR request to be
> sent in on March 16th.

Done at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0028

Provided Norm can generate the draft, we will continue
with our plan to send in the CR request tomorrow.

> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Make preparatory plans to arrange for
> a CR telcon the week of March 20th or so.  TimBL's attendance
> will be required.

Henry has scheduled Tues, 21st 9:00 ET for the CR call.

We should have an explanation as to why we want Tim 
on the call.

ACTION to Paul:  Add such an explanation to the CR request.

> 
> 
> 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]. 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Henry produce a version at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml
> 
> Norm looked at it and approved it.
> 
> Paul reviewed it:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Feb/0039
> and closed the loop at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0014
> 
> Henry posted the version of 2006 March 8 at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml
> 
> Francois points out that this version does not reflect
> errata since the third edition.
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Send his latest source to Henry.

Done.

> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Try to merge the documents.

Done to XML 1.1.  

ACTION to Francois:  Merge the mustifications into XML 1.0.

> 
> We resolved some other PE at the f2f.
> 
> We decided to resolve PE140 by saying that we have 
> fiddled this wording enough and we aren't going to 
> fiddle it any more for fear of making it worse.
> 
> We decided to resolve PE142 by saying that we have 
> fiddled this wording enough and we aren't going to 
> fiddle it any more for fear of making it worse.
> 
> ACTION to François: Update the PE document accordingly
> for PE 140 and 142.

ACTION to François continued.

> 
> We note that the resolution to PE141 has already made 
> what we believe is an appropriate wording change in this area.

However, Richard pointed out a possible misreading here at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0030

The wording should be:

  In a document with an external subset or parameter
  entity references...

(no "external").

That is, we made a mistake in the earlier resolution
of PE141.  We should update the resolution of PE141
to read as shown above (and in Richard's email).

ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE and Errata documents.

> ACTION to Richard: Respond to the commentor about PE140/142 
> including that there is nothing to prevent something from 
> being both a WFC and a VC.

Done.

> 
> With respect to PE143, after production [60], we should 
> add a reference to the "No External Entity References" WFC.
> 
> ACTION to François: Update the Errata and PE document 
> accordingly for PE143.

ACTION to François continued.

> 
> 7. 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.
> 
> ACTION to Richard: Draft the 2nd edition of NS 1.0 
> per the above plan (perhaps by creating a single XML 
> source document for 1.0 and 1.1 using some conditionals).
> 
> ACTION to Richard: Draft a NS 1.1 2nd Edition including 
> this IRI work and the outstanding NS 1.1 errata which, to 
> date, includes only the issue about preventing abuses of xmlns.
> 
> Richard hopes to do something in the next 1-2 weeks.
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> ACTION to Daniel: Update the PE about IRIs for XInclude.
> 
> ACTION to Daniel: Draft XInclude 2nd Edition with all 
> the errata (including the IRI one) applied.
> 
> 
> 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.  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/2006Mar/0023
> [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, 15 March 2006 16:59:16 UTC