- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:07:06 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, September 6, 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). Leonid and DV send regrets for September 6 and 13. 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews. John Cowan reviewed > CSS Module: Namespaces > W3C Working Draft 28 August 2006 > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-namespace-20060828/ His draft response is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Sep/0000 (followed by some comments by Henry and Paul). --- Henry suggests that the current Editors' draft of Web Services Policy 1.5-Framework makes some remarks about xml:id and the interactions with C14N which we should probably review: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.h tml?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Policy_Identification --- There is an ongoing discussion about XPointer split over several different mailing lists [why do people supposedly well aware of how W3C discussions work still do this?!?] that we may have to do something about someday. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Sep/thread.html#msg0 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JulSep/ thread.html#msg5 3. C14N We have three C14N documents all of which we want to approve for initial publication during this week's telcon. --- Jose has produced a publication ready version of the C14N note (documenting the current situation and issues and problems) at http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/ --- Last week's version of the separate "how to use XML Signature today" WG note is at http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/dsig2006-note.html ACTION to Thomas: Produce a publication ready version of the DSIG note and announce to the WG on the XML Core list. ---- Last week we had CONSENSUS to publish these two notes as First WD. ACTION to Paul: Send First publication request. --- The latest editor's draft of C14N 1.1 is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/05/WD-xml-c14n11-20060510.html Richard replied to Konrad's email, esp http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0022 as amended by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0023 at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Aug/0032 saying that it looked good to him, but it will be important to have a test suite testing all the various cases. Richard thinks the "diff markup" of 3986 is enlightening and should actually appear in the spec. Regarding referencing 3986 instead of 2396, we plan to leave the normative text and references of c14n 1.1 as is for a first public working draft, but to add a note in the "status of this document" section that says that the section on xml:base is expected to evolve along with the group's work on that recommendation. CONSENSUS to publish the C14N 1.1 WD as First WD. ACTION to Glenn: Produce a publication ready version of the C14N 1.1 WD and announce to the WG on the XML Core list. ACTION to Paul: Send First publication request. 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. We need to think about incorporation of 3986 and 3987. Richard kindly volunteered to be the editor of XML Base 2nd Edition. We need to update xml:base to reference 3986. We also need to discuss what kind of normalization happens to xml:base attributes in computing the [baseURI]. We need to make it clear what kind of normalization occurs and when it should happen. We have agreed that we do not do escaping of the value for [baseURI]. We need to make this clear in xml:base. ACTION to Richard: Produce a first draft (and diff version) of XML Base Second Edition. Konrad reminds us to mention the special values like xml:base="" and such. We need to tighten up language about escaping disallowed characters (e.g., % signs). 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 Henry has put up Norm's test suite and code, referenced at http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/03/xlink11-tests Norm's tool itself at http://www.w3.org/2006/08/showxlinks/showxlinks is member only. Paul wrote a draft PR request at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0001 ACTION to Norm: Create an XLink DoC. 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. 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 John Cowan raised an issue with a "typo" in these specs at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Sep/0013 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/ 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 an UPDATED draft PER request at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Aug/0039 DV reports that there are a few changes in the XInlude errata that could benefit from a test suite. PEX1, PEX6 and PEX11 could affect conformance and we should add test cases to the test suite for these situations. DV's email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Aug/0033 outlines such tests. ACTION to DV: Add the tests suggested in the email to the test suite at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2001/XInclude-Test-Suite/ and updated http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/XInclude/ also. We plan to vote to take XInclude 2nd Ed to PER this week. 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/2006Aug/0054
Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2006 16:10:29 UTC