W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > March 2007

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 March 28

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:02:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30206DAFBC8@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Ravi (on IRC)

Guests for the C14N discussion

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


Absent organizations
A-SIT (with regrets)
François Yergeau 
Lew Shannon

> 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 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/
> ACTION to Norm:  Review the draft.

Norm looked at it, but there were so many notes about
not being done that he felt it wasn't ready to review.

> 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

Richard also sent email at

Paul asks why we are trying to define the relationship
of C14N 1.1 with XML 1.1 when C14N 1.0 doesn't have a
relationship with XML 1.1, and all we were trying to do
is fix the problem with xml:id.

The WG isn't eager to try to solve these other issues
in C14N 1.1.

The open issue is what we want to put into the C14N 1.1
spec about its relationship (or lack thereof) to XML 1.1.

Paul reviews that we have a Last Call out and are not
getting many comments.  He suggests that we get C14N 1.1
out soon and let those who feel the need to take it further
do so.

The LC ends April 30.  We can start a CR soon after that.
We don't know what kind of implementation experience we
will get, but we should take it to CR in May.

> 4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs.
> 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.
> Mike Kay thinks the defn of XML Resource Identifier is too vague. 
> We decided to write an RFC to define XML Resource Identifier.
> Norm sent a first draft at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Mar/0012
> So 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. 

JohnC made some comments at
and Norm is happy with them, but Richard doesn't think
we should have such syntax in this RFC, we should just be
specifying a mapping to URI.

On a larger scale, this isn't really about XML.  He
wonders if the RFC should call them Authored Resource
Identifiers.  Richard agrees.

Henry wants to avoid discussing legality, but just say
what to do to process such strings.  But Norm, John, and
Richard think we have to discuss legality.

Richard suggests that we say a valid X.R.I. is a string
that, when processed by this RFC, produces a valid IRI.
(This is basically Norm's second paragraph after the bullets.)

We agree to remove "URI" in section 2.

We agreed to change the name to Human Readable Resource 
Identifier (HRRI).

Richard sent some motivational text at
that Norm should consider.

ACTION to Norm:  Generate another draft.

Henry referenced another issue at
but we believe we will have addressed that in the HRRI RFC.

John raised the issue that it may take a year to get
an RFC number.

We felt there would be ways to address this issue if
it becomes a problem.

> 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.

ACTION to Daniel continue.

> 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/2007Mar/0009
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2007 16:04:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:33 UTC