- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:03:48 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, November 21, from 08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka 11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka 15:00-16:00 UTC 16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK 17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe 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 telcon [3] and f2f meetings [4, 5, 6] 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. 3. C14N The C14N 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xml-c14n11-20070621 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/ C14N 1.1 Interoperability testing was performed on 27 September. A report of the outcome is at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/20 07Oct/0000 We had productive discussions during our f2f--see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0028 We are planning to drop Appendix A and augment the prose in 2.4. Frederick will send updated wording suggestions for this section by mid-week. Glenn will incorporate into the draft. ACTION to Frederick: Update the redline version with our latest decisions and resend to the groups by Nov 14. ACTION to Glenn: Produce a new editor's draft reflecting the changes suggested in Frederick's updated redline. We noticed a problem in the merging process where 'Base' argument to join-uris ends with "..". ACTION to Thomas and Frederick: Get implementors to run this new test case and report the results. 4. xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs -> HRRIs -> LEIRIs The (Second Edition) XML Base 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. 4.5. HRRIs -> LEIRIs The latest HRRI draft was published as an ID on May 14 at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-01.txt The most recent editor's draft is at http://www.w3.org/XML/2007/04/hrri/draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-01c.html Henry sent email to I18N Core suggesting our LEIRI solution at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Aug/0032 Martin's latest IRI draft (defining LEIRIs in section 7) is at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-bis-01.txt We've exchanged some email with Martin about some details, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0016 but in general it looks like we'll be happy with the definition of LEIRIs in the new IRI RFC. There are a few outstanding issues; see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0034 Scheduling for the revised IRI RFC is still unclear. 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 Henry/Richard discussed the test suite issues raised by Frans Englich: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-testsuite/2007Mar/ These need to be resolved. Richard reports that the 2005 issue has been resolved in the latest draft. The one from 2006, character references with numbers with dozens of digits, may not be. ACTION: Richard to construct a test case for these issues. 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#NPE27 8. XML 1.0 5th Edition I had sent out email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2007OctDec/0021 and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2007OctDec/0059 and we have gotten very little response--see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-blueberry-comments/2007Oct/ We had some discussion at our f2f--see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0031 We appear to have unofficial agreement by most implementors to consider making this change if it goes through the W3C process. Paul talked to Ian Jacobs who suggested the best way to make this change is to issue an XML 1.0 5th Edition PER with a relatively long review period. (Note, by doing so, we don't really open the discussion of whether this is an erratum or not, so the new title for this discussion is "XML 1.0 5th Edition".) Whether we allow XML 1.0 processors to accept documents labelled version="1.1" is separate from the name char issue, and we don't know if we are going to try to do that in this erratum too. Thoughts? We asked if unlabelled documents would remain 1.0 or not. MSM would like to say an unlabelled document can be attempted to be processed by any processor whereas right now an unlabelled document can only be a 1.0 document (since the XML declaration is required by XML 1.1). Thoughts? [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/2007Oct/0016 [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0016 [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0028 [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0031
Received on Monday, 19 November 2007 17:04:02 UTC