Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 May 23

Attendees
---------
Paul 
Konrad 
Norm 
Henry 
Richard 
John xx:29

[6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 9]

Regrets
------- 
Leonid
Daniel
Glenn

Absent organizations
--------------------
IBM (with regrets)
Daniel Veillard (with regrets)
François Yergeau



> 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.

Paul sends regrets for June 6--Norm will chair.

> 
> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 
> XML clarification
> -----------------
> Norm sent email about < in attribute values at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0006
> 
> Glenn's proposed wording is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0024
> and slightly modified by
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0030
> 
> 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/
> 
> The CR-ready C14N 1.1 draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/05/CR-xml-c14n11-20070509 
> 
> Paul sent out a draft CR request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0040
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Review, comment on the draft CR request.

Henry reviewed--looked good.

ACTION to Henry:  Fix the diff by hand (viz. the added appendix).

CONSENSUS to request to go to CR.

ACTION to Henry:  Organize a CR telcon for the 11th or 12th
with a target pubdate of June 14.

> 
> 4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs -> HRRIs
> 
> 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 HRRI draft was published as an ID on May 14 at
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-01.txt
> 
> Updating Norm's earlier suggested plan per current events,
> Paul suggests the current plan should now be as follows:
> 
>  If by May 28 there are no new comments, I suggest we ask
>  the IETF to publish it as an RFC.

Norm indicated he had gotten private email from Martin Duerst
about security issues with the HRRI draft.  He has asked Martin
to send his comments to an accessible list.

Richard suggests we should add security comments similar to
those in the IRI spec.

Norm points out that, in the IRI spec, one has to %-escape
control characters which isn't the case in HRRIs, so there
is a difference.

Richard points out that this is still the same kind of security
issue as mentioned in the IRI spec.

Henry says that W3C staff recommend that XML Core continue to
work toward an HRRI RFC.

Richard says we could disallow control characters from HRRIs,
but this would be a normative change to several XML specs.

Suggested resolution:  Copy/reference/incorporate the security 
text from the IRI RFC and add text mentioning the security risk
inherent in allowing the use of control characters in HRRIs.

This means we will need to publish another ID once we have
agreement from Martin on the security wording.

> 
> 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/2007May/0027
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2007 15:50:44 UTC