- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:54:05 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, March 14, from 08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka 11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka 15:00-16:00 UTC 15:00-16:00 in Ireland and the UK 16:00-17:00 in middle (most of) Europe 20:30-21:30 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 . ********************************************************** NOTE that Boston (and most of the rest of North America) has already started observing Daylight Savings Time. Since the UK and Europe is still be on Standard time, the local time of this telcon will be one hour earlier than usual local time for most participants outside North America. See also http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=3&day=14&year =2007&hour=11&min=0&sec=0&p1=43 ********************************************************** 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. 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 JohnC emailed his draft review at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0020 --- The XML CG has asked that XML Core review: Widgets 1.0 Requirements http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-reqs-20070209/ and Widgets 1.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/ Any volunteers? --- There was an issue about Bare surrogates in XML raised via the XML CG list; see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Mar/0003 ff 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/ Norm developed a C14N diff at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0013 ---- 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. --- 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. Note also Konrad's email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0018 ACTION to JohnC: Send email to the list summarizing the issue and your suggested solution. The XPath 1.0 data model (which C14N uses) allows for undeclaring namespaces, but this can only be serialized using NS 1.1. But Konrad says C14N inherits the namespaces-in-scope from its ancestors. We may need to change wording in C14N 1.1 about how namespaces are canonicalized. Richard and Konrad sent follow up email about this at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0032 and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Mar/0002 4. xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs. The (Second Edition) PER has been published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xmlbase-20061220/ Mike Kay thinks the defn of XML Resource Identifier is too vague. 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. ACTION to Henry: Give us on update on the status of XML Base. 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. 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.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/2007Feb/0031
Received on Monday, 12 March 2007 15:54:14 UTC