Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 August 15

Attendees
---------
 Paul 
 Glenn
 Norm
 Richard 
 Henry
 François
 John

[7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 9]

Regrets
------- 

Absent organizations
--------------------
A-SIT
Daniel Veillard

> 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.
> 
> XML clarification
> -----------------
> Norm sent email about < in attribute values at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0006
> 
> Glenn's proposed wording is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0024
> and slightly modified by
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0030
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Add this to the PE document for countdown.
> 

In progress.

> EXI first WD
> ------------
> Title: Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) Format 1.0
> Pre pub URI: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/EXI/docs/format/exi.html
> Post pub TR URI: http://www.w3.org/TR/exi/
> 

John Cowan volunteers to review.

---

Henry will be representing the XML Core WG at the XML Signature and
C14N11 Workshop/Interop event in Mountain View, California in late 
September.

---

Liam wants to discuss XML 1.1 deployment at our next telcon.

> 
> 3.  C14N 
> 
> The C14N 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xml-c14n11-20070621
> 
> 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/
> 
> Regarding C14N 1.1:
> Konrad had pointed out some issues with Appendix A.  He sent email
> with the latest suggested updated version of Appendix A and examples:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/0050
> 
> 
> 4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs -> HRRIs
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 
> 4.5.  HRRI RFC
> 
> The latest HRRI draft was published as an ID on May 14 at
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-01.txt
> 
> The most recent editor's draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2007/04/hrri/draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-01c.html
> 
> We are going through Martin's comments.  There has been some 
> more email during the last week.  See especially the June archive 
> for several threads and various emails on the subject:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/
> 
> Norm replied to Martin that we don't think we
> can say that system identifiers are IRIs UNLESS the
> weasel words in the IRI spec (3987) allow all characters 
> that can be in system identifiers at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jul/0008
> Martin and Norm exchanged more email--conversation continuing.
> 

Martin in on vacation until next week.

The IRI spec handles legacy identifiers containing ascii 
characters, but not non-ascii ones that we need, so unless 
Martin says the IRI spec allows non-ascii, we still need HRRIs.

In
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/0052
Richard lists the characters that are not allowed in IRIs, and 
there are many above 255.

John isn't sure this should be an IETF RFC, but a W3C thing.

Norm and Henry believe the I18N Core is planning to update
the IRI RFC.

So Henry suggests we should identify what we would require
in that updated IRI RFC so that we would not have to create
something of our own.

John doesn't want to pollute the term IRI for this.

Henry (and Richard) think the (revised) IRI RFC could 
define "stupid extended IRIs" (or whatever) that we could 
then reference.

John says we could accomplish the same thing ourselves by
creating a "stupid extended IRIs" W3C Rec, and this is
his preference.  John is opposed to doing this in the
IRI RFC (or within the IETF at all).

Henry wants to press to attempt to work with I18N and
their IRI RFC rewrite.  Glenn and Richard agree.

Norm has already asked Martin if the "legacy" text in
the IRI spec can include non-ascii.

ACTION to Henry:  Explore, with the expectation of proposing,
the possibility of asking I18N Core to define "legacy extended 
IRIs" (by whatever name) in the upcoming revision of the IRI RFC.

> ACTION to Norm:  Incorporate changes from Richard about
> character classes and security at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/0052
> and issue a new draft.

On hold.

> 
> 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.
> 
> ----
> 
> Henry/Richard discussed the test suite issues raised by Frans Englich:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-testsuite/2007Mar/ 
> 
> These need to be resolved. 
> 
> Richard reports that the 2005 issue has been resolved in the latest
> draft. 
> 
> The one from 2006, character references with numbers with dozens 
> of digits, may not be. 
> 
> ACTION: Richard to construct a test case for these issues.
> 
> 
> 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#NPE27
> 
> 
> 
> [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/2007Aug/0001
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 15:51:20 UTC