- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 12:48:36 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Paul Konrad xx:18 Glenn Norm Henry Richard John François [8 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 9] Regrets ------- Leonid Daniel Absent organizations -------------------- > 1. Accepting the minutes from the last telcon [3] and > the current task status [2] (have any questions, comments, > or corrections ready by the beginning of the call). Accepted. Regrets from DV May 9 and 23rd. Regrets from Leonid for May 9 and 23rd. Regrets from Glenn for the 23rd. > > 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews. Review of Unicode in XML: http://www.w3.org/2007/05/unicode-in-xml/ JohnC says he had reviewed earlier versions and reviewed the latest changes more recently and found no problems. Francois said he did likewise. Henry is ok with the document. ACTION to Henry: Send email indicating that we have reviewed this per above. --- Technical Plenary questions --------------------------- The following hope/expect to attend: Paul, Konrad, Norm, Henry, Richard The following will most likely not attend: Glenn, John, Francois, Leonid Unknown: Daniel We cannot overlap with XML Proc. We had said we prefer Th, F (we won't need Saturday morning), but then after the call, when Paul was processing his action: ACTION to Paul: Send Frederick (XSSM WG) email about our preferred dates for the TP week. as requested by Konrad, Paul realized that Frederick had already sent email to the XML CG saying that the XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG was planning to meet on Th, F because the Web Security Context WG was planning to meet on M, T. So Paul talked to Norm about the XML Proc WG, and Norm said it didn't matter to XML Proc which dates as long as it didn't overlap with XML Core, so we DECIDED that Paul would just send in the TP questionnaire saying we don't care which dates as long as it doesn't overlap with XML Proc WG. So ACTION to Paul: Fill out the TP questionnaire saying we don't care which dates for XML Core as long as it doesn't overlap with XML Proc WG and indicating one conflict with the XSSM WG. > > XML clarification > ----------------- > Norm sent email about < in attribute values at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0006 > Richard replied at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0007 > > Henry doesn't see why Richard's explanation makes the problem go > away. Glenn explains it, but Henry points out that more explanation > would be useful--at least in the test, and maybe in the spec. > > Glenn suggested putting something in the table near the end (4.4) > if we put anything in the spec. > > Henry suggests adding an example such as this case to Appendix D > (in XML 1.0 4th Ed). > > ACTION to Glenn: Suggest some wording/example to add to the spec > that covers the "< in attribute value" issue (actually, internal > entity in attributes). Glenn suggested wording as shown in a message at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0010 Richard made some comments on the wording at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0020 ACTION to Glenn: Reply to Richard's email with complete proposed wording. ACTION to Francois: Add this to the PE document for countdown. > > 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/ > > We see no reason that C14N 1.1 couldn't be used with XML 1.1. > Philippe LeH would like us to make the relationship between > C14N 1.1 and XML 1.1 clear in the C14N 1.1 spec. > > 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. > > We will plan to put some sort of non-normative note into > the CR draft of the C14N 1.1 spec about its relationship > (or lack thereof) to XML 1.1. > ACTION to Glenn: Check the comments list. ACTION to Glenn: Reply to the four commentors and produce a draft DoC. > > ACTION to Glenn: Produce a CR draft. Glenn's latest draft is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/05/CR-xml-c14n11-20070509 ACTION to Glenn: Update draft per Konrad's latest comment. ACTION to Richard: Verify that the example at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/05/CR-xml-c14n11-20070509#Example-DocSubsetsXMLAttrs is correct. > > 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. > > We need to remember to correct the IP part of the Status section per > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2007JanMar/0000 > > Mike Kay thinks the defn of XML Resource Identifier is too vague. > > We decided to write an RFC to define XML Resource Identifier. > 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. > > Norm's latest draft was published as an ID at > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-00.txt > > Norm states a sugggested plan as follows: > > I suggest we let two weeks tick by, make the edits Paul suggested > and address any other comments, then produce a draft...-01. If, two > weeks later, there are no new comments, I suggest we ask the IETF to > publish it as an RFC. > ACTION to Norm: Make edits suggested by Paul and issue a -01 draft. > Henry suggests we consider > Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0: Resource Identifiers > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-charmod-resid-20041122/ > though Paul isn't sure what's to consider: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0002 > Francois doesn't feel that the ResId spec requires any different action with the HRRI ID. ACTION to Henry: Discuss among the W3T if there are any coordination issues here. > > 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. > > HOWEVER, the actions here are pending until we get the HRRI > RFC since we plan to reference it from XLink. > > > 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. > > ACTION to Francois: Add a new PE per John's comments above > and make some suggested resolution wording. > > > 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. > > > [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/2007Apr/0015 >
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2007 16:48:48 UTC