Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 October 24

Attendees
---------
Paul 
Konrad 
John 
Glenn  xx:18
Richard 
Henry 
Liam xx:30 
François

[7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 9]

Regrets
------- 
Norm

Absent organizations
--------------------
Sun (with regrets)
Daniel Veillard


> 
> Agenda
> ======
> 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.
 
> 
> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 
> TP Week f2f
> -----------
> Our next meeting will be our f2f in Boston.  If you are not
> attending in person, please plan to use IRC and dial in.  See
> the draft agenda for dial in info.
> 
> The draft agenda for the TP week f2f is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/09/xml-f2f-20071105-agenda.htm
> 
> 
> EXI first WD
> ------------
> Title: Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) Format 1.0
> Pre pub URI: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/EXI/docs/format/exi.html
> Post pub TR URI: http://www.w3.org/TR/exi/
> 
> John's review is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Aug/0012
> 
> ACTION to John:  Send in the technical comments with a note
> that we have higher level comments to come.

ACTION continued.

> 
> 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/
> 

See some appendix A corrections/improvements suggested by Konrad at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2007Jun/att-0000/Apendix.html

See also more email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0031

> 
> 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
> 
> Regarding the change from 1.0 to 1.1 highlighted in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Aug/0018
> we will revert to 1.0 wording.
> 
> Regarding point 2 of the interoperability email, it sounds like
> the issue is explained well in the email.  Glenn will try to
> propose some wording to the XML Core list.
> 
> ACTION to Glenn:  Propose some new wording to address point 2
> of the interoperability testing feedback email.

ACTION to Glenn:  Continued, preferably by end of this week.

> Point 3 complains about appendix A being too difficult to 
> understand, partly because it uses 3986 language which is
> also hard to understand.
> 
> ACTION to Konrad:  Send us pointers to suggestions for rewriting
> appendix A.
> 
> One such pointer is 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Sep/0017

Paul tried to start email discussion on this at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Oct/0011
arguing that fiddling with Appendix A was not his preference.

ACTION to Paul:  Respond to the C14N 1.1 feedback with our
latest thoughts.

> 
> 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. 
> 
> 
> 4.5.  HRRI RFC
> 
> 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 recently replied at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Oct/0009
> pointing to a new IRI draft at 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-bis-01.txt
> that contains a first pass defining LEIRIs.
> 
> ACTION to Norm, Richard, and others:  Review Martin's draft LEIRI text.

Francois reviewed it and had no problems with Martin's wording,
just a few holes to be plugged.

ACTION to Henry, Richard:  Review Martin's draft LEIRI text and 
send email to the XML Core mailing list by November 2.

Konrad said the XSSM said that RFC 2732 allows square brackets in
the fragment identifier.  But 3986 supercedes this saying that
square brackets must be escaped in the fragment identifier.
Unescaped square brackets in the fragid of a LEIRI will stay
unescaped, but then the result won't be a valid URI per 3986.
But this isn't an issue for us and/or LEIRIs.

ACTION to Paul:  Send email to Michael Kay to see if our LEIRI
plan satisfies his earlier comment/concern.

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> The following XML PE are in countdown until THIS telcon:
> 
> PE156 Inclusion of external entities 
> PE157 UTF-16 and Byte Order Mark 
> PE158 UTF-8 BOM 
> PE159 No < in Attribute Values 
> 

CONSENSUS:  All approved.

ACTION to Francois:  Process as errata or as appropriate.

> See
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/08/proposed-xml10-4e-and-xml11-2e-errata
> for further details
> 
> ----
> 
> 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.

ACTION to Richard: continued.

> 
> 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 1.1 deployment.
> 
> 
> [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/0008
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 16:11:56 UTC