- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:11:19 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Paul Konrad Glenn Norm Richard Henry John xx:13 Daniel Liam [8 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 9] Regrets ------- Absent organizations -------------------- François Yergeau > 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. DV gives regrets for Sept 12. > > 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews. John Cowan now officially represents Google. > > 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. ACTION to Francois continued. > > 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's review is at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Aug/0012 > Read it to decide if we want to send this in as the XML Core > WG review. John's review was on the technical issues. John thinks XML is entrenched enough that we don't need to worry, and he feels there may be some applications that do need greater interchange speed. Daniel is more concerned in general that the EXI concept is a bad idea that could cause problems in the general support and interoperability of XML. He does not wish to support EXI in libxml. Richard wonders why compression isn't a good enough solution. Henry says that decompression can take too many resources. Glenn says the binary form may actually be easier to process than clear form XML. Richard's comment is: EXI allows "pluggable codecs" which, I fear, will allow vendors to produce allegedly-XML documents that can only be read on their proprietary systems. Henry suggests that section 7.4 Pluggable Codecs should include a health warning. He says: I think we should add a request for a _strong_ health warning wrt 7.4 Pluggable CODECS, along the lines of: "Use of the Pluggable CODECs feature will reduce interoperability, and SHOULD be avoided in documents which are intended for distribution outside highly constrained user communities." Richard says a warning isn't going to stop implementors that may want to reduce interoperability (i.e., do something proprietary) ACTION to Paul: Send in a suggestion that we might discuss this at the TP. ACTION to John: Send in the technical comments with a note that we have higher level comments to come. > > 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 > > There is another thread on C14N 1.1 at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Aug/thread.html#msg18 If anyone has thoughts on this, please send email. > > 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 > > Henry took an action to investigate getting I18N Core to define > what we need in the latest IRI rewrite--see > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Aug/0016 > Review this to see if it needs any changes before sending off > to I18N Core. Henry's message doesn't reflect some of the latest things raised by Richard. ACTION to Henry and Richard: Update Henry's message to reflect Richard's latest input as necessary and then send that to I18N Core of behalf of XML Core. > > 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. ACTION to Francois: Process PE 152 and 153 as accepted errata. > > 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. Done at http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/08/proposed-xml10-4e-and-xml11-2e-errata.html#PE157 ACTION to Francois: Put PE 157 into countdown. > > [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. This is now PE 158 at http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/08/proposed-xml10-4e-and-xml11-2e-errata.html#PE158 ACTION to Francois: Put PE 158 into countdown. --- ACTION to Richard: Look at PE156 at http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/08/proposed-xml10-4e-and-xml11-2e-errata.html#PE156 and comment. > ---- > > 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 > > > 8. Liam requests we discuss XML 1.1 deployment. He listed three deployment blockers to XML 1.1 use: 1. We broke compatibility: not all 1.0 documents will remain well-formed XML if you put a 1.1 declaration on top of it. 2. Not all software will support 1.1, so fewer people are willing to (try to) use it. 3. Some people want to put binary data within their XML, but they are not well served by 1.1. (Neither does 1.0, but some folks hoped that 1.1 would solve this, and when they found this was not the case, 1.1 held no benefit for them.) Liam suggests the way forward: 1. Change XML 1.1 to relieve some of these anxieties: revert both C0 and C1 control character handling to be the way it is in 1.0. 2. Allow all 1.x processors to process any 1.x document for all x. That was refined to: allow any 1.x processor to process a document labeled with any 1.y version value even though such a processor may not make it to the end of the document and/or produce the same results. 3. If we reinstate the C1 controls, we've made a backward incompatible change to 1.1, so we either need to make a 1.2 or to rescind 1.1 (or both). Konrad asked how this might affect namespaces 1.1. We might have to version that to namespaces 1.2 also. We should try to discuss this in email. We will also plan to revisit on our next telcon. > > [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/0010 >
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 16:13:43 UTC