Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 September 13

Attendees
---------
Konrad 
Paul
Ravi, CDAC (on IRC)
Glenn   xx:10
Norm
Richard
Henry

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

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

Regrets
-------  
Leonid
Daniel
Thomas
John

Absent organizations
--------------------
Daniel Veillard (with regrets)
John Cowan (with regrets)
Lew Shannon
François Yergeau


We have CANCELLED the telcon for next week.

Our next telcon will be the usual time on September 27th.


> 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/
> 
> Paul sent in the XML Core WG response to the www-style list.
> WG members who want to see the discussion should visit
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Sep/thread.html#msg45
> to see it.  There is quite a discussion, and I'm not
> up for champion anything in particular, so those in
> the WG interested in this issue should feel free to
> post to www-style and/or start a WG discussion on our
> mailing list (or raise it at this week's telcon).
> 

Paul pointed out the discussion.  No one had much of
a stomach for entering into the fray, so unless JohnC
wants to push things, we have no further action planned here.

> ---
> 
> 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
> 
> 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.

ACTION to Jose continued until after publication (which we
hope will be this Friday).

> 
> 3.  C14N 
> 
> We have three C14N documents all of which have been approved
> for publication this Friday.  Paul has sent in the pubrequest:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Sep/0038
> 
> 
> * First WD of an XML Core WG Note:
>   Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0)
> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/c14n-note.html
> 
> * First WD of an XML Core WG Note:
>   Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML Environment
> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/dsig2006-note.html
> 
> * First WD of the Recommendation track:
>   Canonical XML 1.1
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/WD-xml-c14n11-20060915.html
> 
> 
> The above URLs are the publication-ready versions as of 
> 2006 September 8, but dated September 15th in anticipation
> of publication at that time.  
> 
> They are written to be published by being copied as-is into 
> the following locations:

* First WD of an XML Core WG Note:
  Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-C14N-issues-20060915/Overview.html

* First WD of an XML Core WG Note:
  Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML Environment
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DSig-usage-20060915/Overview.html

* First WD of the Recommendation track:
  Canonical XML 1.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20060915/Overview.html


> ---
> 
> Some notes on the C14N 1.1 WD:
> 
> 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.  [Actually, we didn't put any such wording
> into the status.]
> 
> 
> 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 is working on a new draft currently at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/
> 
> The "Editor's Notes" section outlines expected changes.
> 

Richard made some more small changes.  In doing so,
he looked at XLink 1.1 and raised some issues.
The definition of XML Resource Identifiers is at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/#xml-resource-identifier
This includes:

 If required, an IRI reference can be converted to a
 URI reference by following the prescriptions of
 Section 3.1 of [RFC 3987]. This conversion 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 IRI to
 an absolute one nor the process of passing a IRI reference
 to a process or software component responsible for
 dereferencing it should trigger escaping.

Nowhere do we say that conversion from an XML Resource
Identifier to an IRI must occur as late as possible.
Richard thinks we need to say that, perhaps just:

 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.

CONSENSUS to go with this new wording in XLink 1.1.

ACTION to Norm:  Implement the new wording in XLink 1.1.

> 
> 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.

Henry and Norm are working on improving this stuff.

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

ACTION to Henry continued.

> 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.
> 
> Last week we voted to take XInclude 2nd Ed to PER, but Paul
> found there were too many issues with the front matter to 
> do so--see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Sep/0029
> 
> ACTION to DV:  Address Paul's email and produce another draft.
> 

ACTION to DV continued:  See the above email and produce
another draft that we can take to PER.


> 
> 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/2006Sep/0022
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:36:17 UTC