- 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Snapshot for TR page (last call version; outdated)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