- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:40:10 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, January 31, from 08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka 11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka 16:00-17:00 UTC 16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK 17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe 21:30-22:30 in most of India on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#. We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 . See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents and other information. If you have additions to the agenda, please email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon. Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it at the beginning of the call. Agenda ====== 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). 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews. The QA working group asked Ian Hickson of the Web Application Formats WG to request that the XML Core working group review the XBL2 specification that is currently in Last Call: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/xbl2/Overview.html?content-type =text/html Editor's copy (more up to date) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060907/ Snapshot for TR page (last call version; outdated) fwiw, here are a few reviews/notes one might want to read for some other XML Activity members' thoughts: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0002 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0012 ACTION to Norm: Review this WD. --- 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. 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. 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 ACTION to Henry: Initiate email discussion of this issue by suggesting a possible response. 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. 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/ 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.tx t 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 Monday, 29 January 2007 15:44:10 UTC