Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 September 27

Attendees
---------
 Konrad xx:06
 Paul
 Ravi, CDAC (on IRC)
 Leonid
 Richard xx:08
 Henry 
 François 
 Lew
 Daniel  xx:49

Guests for the C14N discussion
------------------------------
 Jose   xx:13

[9 organizations (9 with proxies) present out of 11]

Regrets
------- 
Norm
DV

Absent organizations
--------------------
IBM
John Cowan


*****************************************************

NOTE:  Starting immediately, we will plan to have
a telcon every other week (at the usual time).

Therefore we will not meet October 4th.  Our next
meeting will be October 11th.

*****************************************************


> 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.
> 
> 
> 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 XML 1.1
>      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
> 
> ---
> 
> 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.]
> 

We should probably take care of XML Base next so that
we can reference it in the C14N 1.1.

Konrad made some suggestions on what needs to be done
to the next draft of C14N 1.1 at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Aug/0046

ACTION to Glenn:  Implement Konrad's suggested changes
in the C14N 1.1 WD, raising any issues or questions in 
email.  Due at our next telcon in 2 weeks.

Jose reminded anyone who wishes to see the C14N discussion
to subscribe to www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org .


> 
> 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 has rewritten section 4.1; see
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/#escaping

Therein he wrote:

 The value of an xml:base attribute is an XML resource
 identifier, and may contain characters not allowed in
 URIs. These characters must be escaped as described in
 [XLink11] before it is used for retrieval of a resource.
 In accordance with the principle that this escaping must
 occur as late as possible in the processing chain,
 applications which provide access to the base URI of an
 element should return the unescaped value. 

We discussed the musts and shoulds, but had no objections
to Richard's wording.

Richard will make a suggestion for replacement of 
section 5.1 for next week.

Richard would like to test some implementations for
what they give in terms of URIs (e.g., escaped or not?).

Richard did test what XSLT 2.0 does in Saxon 8, and it
returns an escaped value.  He thought XSLT should return
unescaped.  His test files are xslt2-test.xsl and 
base-uri-test.xml in
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/

ACTION to Norm:  Respond to Richard's question as to what
XSLT 2.0 should be doing with IRIs.

Henry pointed out Richard could use the XLink test tool at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/03/xlink11-tests
to do some of his XML Base testing.

> 
> 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
> 
> 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.
> 

Henry reported progress with the test suite at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/03/xlink11-tests

> 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
> 
> John Cowan raised an issue with a "typo" in these specs at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Sep/0013
> 
> Henry is in the process of getting this fixed in place--status?
> 

Henry sent updated status at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Sep/0073

The results of his work are at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/08/xml10-4e/Overview.html 
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/08/xml11-2e/Overview.html
with XML in the same directories.

He needs at least one other pair of eyes to proof read
what he did.

ACTION to JohnC:  Proof what Henry did.

ACTION to Francois:  Produce HTML from the new XML
and compare it to the old HTML to see if there are
any inappropriate differences. 

Barring hearing about problems from someone before 
COB Thursday:

ACTION to Henry:  Publish the corrected versions.

ACTION to Henry:  In the fullness of time, correct
the review versions.

> 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.

ACTION to Francois continued.

> 
> 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.

ACTION to Richard continued.

> 
> 
> 8. Xinclude Rec was published 2004 December 30 at:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xinclude-20041220/
> 
> The PER-ready version is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/10/PER-xinclude-20061003/
> 
> Paul sent in the Transition Request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Sep/0069
> 
> It looks like we are going to be able to publish without
> a transition call, but that is still awaiting final
> confirmation.
> 

Henry reported that we were almost ready to go to PER
without a call, but then the question about testing
the changes arose.

DV had sent new tests at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Aug/0033
but they had never made it into CVS.

Henry has now installed them into CVS and updated
the test suite at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/XInclude/

Henry tested implementations with the new tests successfully,
and now we are back on track to go to PER without a telcon.

Next step is a Director's decision, and then we will
be able to publish the PER.

We should still be able to make the Oct 3 date.

There is no need for Paul to send a publication 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/2006Sep/0059
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2006 15:59:52 UTC