Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 February 14

Attendees
---------
Paul
Ravi (on IRC)
Glenn
Norm
Leonid
Philippe
John
Daniel
Lew

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

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

Regrets
------- 
Richard 
Henry 

Absent organizations
--------------------
A-SIT
Univ of Edinburgh
François Yergeau 


Daniel gives regrets for Feb 28.


> 1. Accepting the minutes from the last (Dec 20) 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.
> 
> Norm reviewed the XBL2 Last Call:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0018
> 
> Shortly thereafter, I noticed:
> 
> > The second Last Call for XBL2 has been published:
> >
> > XML Binding Language (XBL) 2.0
> > W3C Working Draft 17 January 2007
> > Editor: Ian Hickson
> >
> > This Version:
> >     http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xbl-20070117/
> > Latest Version:
> >     http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/
> >
> > The comment period ends 9 February 2007. All comments should be  
> > send to public-appformats mail list.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Ensure your comments are still relevant, then
> plan to send in your comments on Feb 9th barring any XML Core
> member comments to the contrary.

Done.

> 
> ---
> 
> Issue on attribute canonicalization raised by Norm at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0020
> and by Eric Prud'hommeaux at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0019
> 
> We figure if this is RDF's way to quote attributes, 
> it's fine with us, as it's RDF-specific.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Reply to Eric with this and see if we've
> misunderstood something.

Done.

> 
> ---
> 
> We have been asked to review XForms 1.1 which is going to 
> Last Call soon.
> 
> The current working draft dated 12 Feb 2007 appears at 
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group/Drafts/1.1/fullspec/index-all.html 
> 
> A diff-marked version showing the changes for 1.1 relative to 
> XForms 1.0 Second Edition appears here: 
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group/Drafts/1.1/fullspec/index-diff.html
> 
> Are there any volunteers to review?

ACTION to John:  Review XForms 1.1 for us.

> 
> 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/
> 
> ----
> 
> Konrad raised an issue about Exclusive XML Canonicalization at 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0043 
> 
> We need to take a closer look at this to see what if anything 
> we want to do about this. Perhaps it's just something to send 
> to the XML Security WG when they start up next year.

---

Jose forwarded a message from Philippe:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0008

What is the relationship between C14N 1.1 and XML 1.1?

We see no reason that C14N 1.1 couldn't be used with XML 1.1.
Philippe would like us to make this clear in the C14N 1.1 spec.

Namespaces 1.1 does allow the undeclaring of a namespace prefix
which might cause problems for C14N.  But then we decided there
might already be problems with C14N and NS 1.0 (not preserving
prefixes in some cases--what JohnC calls qname-correctness).

JohnC suggests:  If a namespace is declared in the input, then 
it must be declared in the output.

John points out that it's not clear how you generate an xpath 1.0 
model for an XML 1.1 document.

ACTION to JohnC:  Send email to the list summarizing the issue
and your suggested solution.

> 
> 4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs.
> 
> The (Second Edition) PER has been published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xmlbase-20061220/ 
> 
> Henry reported some feedback at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0010
> 
> We discussed this on our last telcon, and I believe there
> are no outstanding actions here (except perhaps for Henry).
> 
> However, Henry then reported that a further problem has been 
> pointed out:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2007JanMar/0001 ff
> which we need to discuss.
> 
> Philippe le Hegaret is checking with Ian Jacobs to see what our 
> options are if we decided we wanted to rapidly publish a definition 
> of XRIs separately, and then put normative references to that 
> definition in xml:base 2e and XLink 1.1, without resetting their 
> Process state if at all possible.

Mike Kay thinks the defn of XML Resource Identifier is too vague. 

PLH/Ian gave their opinion at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0006

Paul thinks an RFC is easier and more appropriate.

Paul, John, Norm don't think copying it in several places is a solution.

It seems we have three choices:

1.  a mini-Rec
2.  an RFC
3.  XML 1.0 Fifth Edition
4.  and the defn to Infoset and come up with an new edition

We were thinking we could produce a new edition of the Infoset 
that includes our definition XML Resource Identifier and change 
the reference in XML Base from one to XLink to one to XML Base 
and also change XLink to reference the new definition in the 
Infoset edition.

We should also issue PEs for XML 1.0 and 1.1 about this.

Then John points out the definition of XML Resource Identifier
is basically in the XML spec without actually using the term.
He suggests we just add the term to XML 1.0 5th Ed and XML 1.1 3rd Ed.

Norm suggests we provide a more crisp defn of XML Resource 
Identifier and say processors "should" check it but don't
have to.

ACTION to Norm:  Draft a better definition of XML Resource
Identifier.

We'll let this sit for a couple weeks and then decide 
more exactly what to do.

> 
> 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
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Follow up in email on:
> XLink conformance criteria question, Boris Zbarsky 
> 
> 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.

Norm posted something at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0011

> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Provide a few more tests for the test suite.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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/2006Dec/0055
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:06:24 UTC