Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 November 8

Attendees
---------
Paul
Konrad
Leonid
Richard 
Henry  
Daniel 

Guests for the C14N discussion
------------------------------
Jose   

[6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 11]

Regrets
------- 
 Norm
 Glenn  

Absent organizations
--------------------
CDAC
IBM (with regrets)
Lew Shannon
François Yergeau
John Cowan


> 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.
> 
> The QA working group asked Ian Hickson of the Web Application 
> Formats WG to request that the XML Core working group review 
> the XBL2 specification that is currently in Last Call:
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/xbl2/Overview.html?content-type=text/html
> Editor's copy (more up to date)
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060907/
> Snapshot for TR page (last call version; outdated)
> 
> fwiw, here are a few reviews/notes one might want to
> read for some other XML Activity members' thoughts:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0002
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0012
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Review this WD.
> 
> ---
> 
> Issue on attribute canonicalization raised by Norm at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0020
> and by Eric Prud'hommeaux at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0019
> 
> We figure if this is RDF's way to quote attributes, 
> it's fine with us, as it's RDF-specific.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Reply to Eric with this and see if we've
> misunderstood something.
> 
> 
> 3.  C14N 
> 
> Our three C14N documents have been published:
> 
> Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0)
>      W3C Working Draft 15 September 2006
> This version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-C14N-issues-20060915/
> Latest version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/C14N-issues/
> 
> Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML Environment
>      W3C Working Draft 15 September 2006
> This version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DSig-usage-20060915/
> Latest version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/DSig-usage/
> 
> Canonical XML1.1
>      W3C Working Draft 15 September 2006
> This version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20060915
> Latest version:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n11
> 
> ---
> 
> The latest C14N 1.1 editors draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/WD-xml-c14n11.html
> 
> ACTION to Glenn:  Check the comments list and let us know of any
> comments we should address.

Done--there were no comments.

> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Review the latest C14N 1.1 esp App A.

App A seemed to match what was a diff last time.

Konrad sent in some editorial comments at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Nov/0005

ACTION to Glenn:  Make the editorial changes unless there are problems.

Plan to approve for LC publication at our next telcon in two weeks
and then publish the LC in mid-December in concert with the XML Base PER.

Jose suggested we republish the two WG Notes at the same time.
We forsee no changes to them except some references to new versions
of C14N 1.1 and XML Base.  

> 
> 4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs.
> 
> The latest draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/
> 
> We are ready to publish an Editor's Draft.
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Prepare a draft ready to publish
> (including the SoTD para given below) and place at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/10/xmlbase-2e/Overview.html
> 
> The suggested SoTD para is:
> 
>  This is a public Editor's Draft, published to encourage
>  review of the proposed restructuring of this document. 
>  Since the changes are in the nature of corrections for
>  errata, after public review and possible further
>  modifications in light of comments received, the
>  group expects to request publication as a PER.
> 

Richard has updated the draft at
 http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/
and created a draft of the errata page at
 http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/xmlbase-errata

CONSENSUS to make this draft and errata page public.

ACTION to Richard and Henry:  Make the draft and updated errata
public and announce to chairs and xml-dev, etc. as appropriate.

We will plan to go to PER in mid-December.

> 
> 5.  XLink update.
> 
> The XLink CR was published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ 
> 
> Paul wrote a draft PR request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0001
> 
> Norm posted a DoC at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/xlink11-doc.html
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC to remove the two non-XLink comments.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Follow up in email on:
> XLink conformance criteria question, Boris Zbarsky 
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Post to the WG mailing list something to
> show that any valid XLink 1.1 document can be programmatically 
> converted into an equivalent XLink 1.0 document.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Provide a few more tests for the test suite.
> 
> The old version XLink in section 5.5, we talk about values
> of href attributes.
> 
> In the new version, we talk about IRIs and XML Resource 
> Identifiers and other ways of encoding.  So it's unclear
> now what to do about spaces in href attributes.  Compare
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/#link-semantics and the
> wording above it in section 5.4.1 at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/#xml-resource-identifier
> 
> Norm thinks instead of spaces, we should now say non-URI
> characters. 
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Make a suggestion how best to fix this.
> 
> Also, nowhere do we say that conversion from an XML Resource
> Identifier to an IRI must occur as late as possible.
> Suggested new wording:
> 
>  If required, the IRI reference resulting from converting
>  an XML Resource Identifier can be converted to a
>  URI reference by following the prescriptions of
>  Section 3.1 of [RFC 3987].
> 
>  The conversion from an XML Resource Identifiers to an
>  IRI must be performed only when absolutely necessary and
>  as late as possible in a processing chain.  In particular,
>  neither the process of converting a relative XML Resource
>  Identifier to an absolute one nor the process of passing
>  an XML Resource Identifier to a process or software component
>  responsible for dereferencing it should trigger escaping.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Implement the new wording in XLink 1.1.
> 
> 
> 6. XML 1.0/1.1 4th/2nd Editions published 2006 August 16:
> 
>  Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816
> 
>  Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document per last telcon's
> decisions.
> 
> On PE 157, John sent email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0036
> with his suggested response and a question for the WG:
> 
> > Should we add specific references to UTF-16BE, UTF-16LE, CESU-8,
> > etc. etc. to 4.3.3?  If so, we might as well remove "We consider the
> > first case first" from Appendix F; it's more than obvious.
> 
> ACTION to Francois, Richard, Daniel, Glenn, Henry:  Express an
> opinion on John's question.

We agreed that, according to the spec, such a character is not a BOM.

Henry suggested we should provide an explanation, but he's not sure
if it should go in the spec or just to the commentor.

We will pick this back up later when John is on the call.

> 
> 
> 7. Namespaces in XML 1.0/1.1 2nd Editions published 2006 August 16:
> 
>  Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Second Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816
> 
>  Namespaces in XML 1.1 (Second Edition)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names11-20060816
> 
> 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/
> 
> The XInclude Second Edition PER has been published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xinclude-20061003/
> 
> The Call for Review is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2006OctDec/0001
> Please urge your AC rep to complete this review.
> 
> It turns out XInclude should be under CPP not PP.
> Henry and Philippe to address in PER with Daniel
> addressing in the final REC text.

We did have a comment on XInclude that we missed:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2005Jun/0006

which was re-raised last month:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2006Oct/0001
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2006Oct/0002

Henry suggests we accept in principle the commentors suggestion.

We have CONSENSUS to accept the commentors suggestion pretty
much verbatim:

 If the media type of the resource indicates,
 according to XML Media Types [RFC 3023], that the
 resource is XML--for example ...--then the encoding is determined
 as specified in [XML 1.0] or [XML 1.1] section 4.3.3,
 as appropriate.

where ... is the "for example" text currently in the spec.

ACTION to Daniel:  Implement the above change plus the IP change
to the status section plus any ???'s in the document and push it
to the Group XML space.

ACTION to Henry:  Send to DV the IP para and the pub date.

ACTION to Henry:  Take it from where Daniel put it and publish it.

> 
> 
> 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.txt
> 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.
> 
> 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/2006Oct/0035
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 17:04:07 UTC