Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 September 6

Attendees
---------
 Konrad  xx :35
 Paul
 CDAC (on IRC)
 Glenn
 Norm
 Richard
 Henry

Guests for the C14N discussion
------------------------------
 Thomas Roessler
 Jose

[7 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 11]

Regrets
-------  
Leonid
Daniel, proxy to the chair 
John
François 

Absent organizations
--------------------
Daniel Veillard (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
John Cowan (with regrets)
François Yergeau (with regrets)
Lew Shannon


Leonid, DV sends regrets for September 6 and 13.


> 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.
> 
> 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).
> 

John sent an update draft response at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Sep/0020

CONSENSUS to send on John's review as our WG review.

ACTION to Paul:  Send it on.

> ---
> 
> 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.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Policy_Identification


Henry was hoping someone else could review this and let
us know if there is a problem here.

Jose said he read the text, and he thinks our C14N note(s)
and WD will address this issue, so we should tell these
folks to see our drafts and suggest that they might want
to remove their workaround.

Thomas figures they will keep their language about C14N 1.0,
but we should point out C14N 1.1 and ask that they review it.

ACTION to Jose for next week (after we publish the drafts):
Plan to send email to Web Services Policy WG pointing out
the notes and C14N 1.1 and asking that they review them.

> ---
> 
> 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

Henry thinks we should probably publish some XPointer errata
at some point to address some of the issues.

The Team is working on the registry issues.

We don't believe we need to rush to do anything at this point.

> 
> 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.
> 

ACTION to Thomas continued--due before end of week.

> ----
> 
> 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.
> 

ACTION to Paul: Send in request to director now.

ACTION to Paul: Send in pub request when Thomas' draft is ready.

> 
> 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).
> 

Richard is working on a new draft currently at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/

> 
> 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.
> 

ACTIONs to Norm continued.

> 
> 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
> 

ACTION to Henry:  Check if this issue is something that can
be fixed in place.

Richard notes that there were some comments sent to the
xml-editor list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2006JulSep/0004
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2006JulSep/0005

ACTION to Francois: Add the above two issues to the PE document.

> 
> 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.

CONSENSUS to request we take XInclude 2nd Ed to PER.

ACTION to Paul:  Make the request.


> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 6 September 2006 15:42:33 UTC