Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 April 25

Attendees
---------
Paul
Glenn  xx:08
Norm  xx:10
Henry
Richard
Daniel  
John

[7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
------- 
François 

Absent organizations
--------------------
A-SIT
Lew Shannon
François Yergeau (with regrets)

> 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.

Regrets from DV May 9 and 23rd.

> 
> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 
> XML clarification
> -----------------
> Norm sent email about < in attribute values at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0006
> Richard replied at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0007
> 
> Henry doesn't see why Richard's explanation makes the problem go
> away.  Glenn explains it, but Henry points out that more explanation
> would be useful--at least in the test, and maybe in the spec.
> 
> Glenn suggested putting something in the table near the end (4.4)
> if we put anything in the spec.
> 
> Henry suggests adding an example such as this case to Appendix D
> (in XML 1.0 4th Ed).
> 
> ACTION to Glenn:  Suggest some wording/example to add to the spec
> that covers the "< in attribute value" issue (actually, internal 
> entity in attributes).

ACTION to Glenn:  continued.

> ---
> 
> schema infoset fix-ups
> ----------------------
> Michael SMcQ sent email on the subject of schema infoset fix-ups at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0002
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Look at CMSMCQ's email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0002
> and let us know if there is anything the XML Core WG should do/say
> about this.

Henry looked at it, and we discussed it in some detail.

Henry took an action to reply; done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0014

----

Discussion with John Cowan and Sandro on the Semantic Web list
about base URI accessor in RDF syntax and grammar spec.

We (especially Richard) think the latest XML Base PER makes
our position on this clear.

ACTION to Henry:  Discuss this with Sandro (perhaps offline).

ACTION to John:  Suggest an erratum to clarify this issue
in the Infoset spec.

> 
> 3.  C14N 
> 
> The C14N 1.1 Last Call working draft is published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20061220
> 
> Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0) WG Note 
> has been published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-C14N-issues-20061220/
> 
> Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML Environment 
> WG Note has been published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-DSig-usage-20061220/
> 
> We see no reason that C14N 1.1 couldn't be used with XML 1.1.
> Philippe LeH would like us to make the relationship between
> C14N 1.1 and XML 1.1 clear in the C14N 1.1 spec.
> 
> Paul asks why we are trying to define the relationship
> of C14N 1.1 with XML 1.1 when C14N 1.0 doesn't have a
> relationship with XML 1.1, and all we were trying to do
> is fix the problem with xml:id.  The WG isn't eager to 
> try to solve these other issues in C14N 1.1.
> 
> We will plan to put some sort of non-normative note into 
> the CR draft of the C14N 1.1 spec about its relationship 
> (or lack thereof) to XML 1.1.

ACTION to Glenn:  Propose some wording.

> 
> The LC ends April 30.  We can start a CR soon after that.
> We don't know what kind of implementation experience we
> will get, but we should take it to CR in May.
> 

ACTION to Glenn:  Check the comments list.

ACTION to Glenn:  Produce a CR draft.

> 
> 4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs.
> 
> The (Second Edition) PER has been published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xmlbase-20061220/ 
> 
> It's now waiting for us to say what should happen next--whether 
> we want a Director's call now or not.
> 
> We need to remember to correct the IP part of the Status section per
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2007JanMar/0000
> 
> Mike Kay thinks the defn of XML Resource Identifier is too vague. 
> 
> We decided to write an RFC to define XML Resource Identifier.
> The plan is to get this to an RFC and then reference it from
> XML Base (which we can then take to REC) and others. 
> 
> Norm's latest draft (as of 2007 April 10) is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/03/xmlresourceid/
> 

Richard sent some comments at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0012

Editorial things plus fixing bullet on control characters.

ACTION to Norm:  Update draft per the above comments/decisions.

> CONSENSUS to publish as an ID.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Request publication of our draft as an ID.

ACTION continued.

> 
> 5.  XLink update.
> 
> The XLink CR was published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ 
> 
> The latest almost PR-ready XLink draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/
> 
> Norm posted a DoC at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/xlink11-doc.html
> 
> Paul wrote a SECOND draft PR request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0059
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Complete resolution of DoC.
> 
> ACTION to WG (need volunteer):  Update the Implementation Report.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Produce PR-ready draft.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Produce diff/review version.
> 
> HOWEVER, the actions here are pending until we get the HRRI
> RFC since we plan to reference it from XLink.
> 
> 
> 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 previous 
> telcons' 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.
> 
> We agreed that, according to the spec, such a character is not a BOM.
> 
> We have decided that John's email should be sent to the commentor
> as a response (done, see [11]), and that the only change 
> resulting from 
> this PE are some editorial changes as outlined in John's email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0056
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document with John's editorial
> changes as the proposed resolution to PE 157.
> 
> [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2006OctDec/0010
> 
> ----
> 
> John sent email about a new PE related to UTF-8 BOM at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0067
> proposing the following language as a new paragraph in 4.3.3
> for both XML 1.0 and XML 1.1:
> 
> 	If the replacement text of an external entity is to
> 	begin with the character U+FEFF, and no text declaration
> 	is present, then a Byte Order Mark MUST be present,
> 	whether the entity is encoded in UTF-8 or UTF-16.
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Add a new PE per John's comments above
> and make some suggested resolution wording.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Richard has recorded Anne's issue/proposed resolution at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata.html#NPE27
> 
> 
> 8.  XInclude 1.0 Second Edition has been published:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xinclude-20061115/
> 
> We got a comment about the XInclude spec at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0013
> 
> Paul suggested some specific wording to clarify the xi:fallback at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0023
> 
> Henry suggested wording to clarify xml:lang fixup at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0022
> 
> ACTION to Daniel:  Process these as (editorial) errata to the
> latest XInclude spec.

ACTION to Daniel continued.

> 
> 
> [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/2007Apr/0009
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 15:58:13 UTC