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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 November 21

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:01:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020981915C@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


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


Absent organizations
IBM (with regrets)
François Yergeau

Regrets from Norm and maybe DV for Dec 5.

> 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/2007Oct/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.

Sent at
In particular, see
for the PDF attachments.

> ACTION to Glenn: Produce a new editor's draft reflecting 
> the changes suggested in Frederick's updated redline. 

ACTION continued.

> 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.

ACTION continued.

ACTION to Henry:  Come up with an argument for going to PR
with what will be the next draft of C14N 1.1.

> 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. 

ACTION to Richard:  Produce another PER-ready draft
of XML Base referencing LEIRIs.

> 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

for Martin's latest.

I think we are able to accept what it appears will be Martin's
wording in the next draft.

ACTION to Henry:  Send one more reply to Martin about "should
be as late as possible."

> Scheduling for the revised IRI RFC is still unclear.

ACTION to Paul:  Ask Martin about scheduling.

> 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.

ACTION to Norm: Produce a PR-ready draft of XLink 1.1 with 
a reference to the IRI RFC for LEIRIs.

> 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?

In general, we are leaning toward allowing 1.0 processors
to process documents with any version value of the form 1.x.

Does a document have more than one "true (complete)" infoset?

A character reference to a C0 control is allowed in 1.1 but
not in 1.0.  If a 1.0 processor parses such a document, it
will throw an error.

Richard points out that a document with #x85 processed by a 1.0
processor will result in an infoset that isn't the same as
that gotten when processed by a 1.1 processor, and we won't
really know that we got a different result (unless the 5th Ed
processor decided to produce a warning).

If we allow this, we are saying that a document could have 
two different complete infosets, one when processed by a 1.0 
processor and the other when processed by a 1.1 processor.

ACTION to Henry:  Check with Noah how IBM feels about #x85.

See http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#intro.versions
where it says:

 The information set of an XML document is defined to be
 the one obtained by parsing it according to the rules of
 the specification whose version corresponds to that of the
 document. A document which does not specify a version number
 is considered to have version 1.0. If an XML processor accepts
 a document with a version number that it does not understand,
 it will not necessarily be able to produce the correct
 information set. 

CONSENSUS to allow XML 1.0 processors to accept documents 
labelled version="1.1".

> 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?

See the above quote from the Infoset which says that:

 A document which does not specify a version number
 is considered to have version 1.0.

We did not discuss this item at the telcon.
> [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 Wednesday, 21 November 2007 17:02:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:35 UTC