Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 September 12

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
September 12, 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
          20:30-21:30 in most of India
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
   the current task status [2] (have any questions, comments,
   or corrections ready by the beginning of the call).

Regrets from DV.


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.

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.

Paul sent in a suggestion that we might discuss this at the TP
(but it isn't clear we will).


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/

Regarding C14N 1.1:
Konrad had pointed out some issues with Appendix A.  He sent email
with the latest suggested updated version of Appendix A and examples:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/0050

There is another thread on C14N 1.1 at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Aug/thread.ht
ml#msg18


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
but we have received no reply.

Paul raised this issue at this week's XML CG, and the CG chair
was charged with trying to improve communication with I18N.


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:  Process PE 152 and 153 as accepted errata.

ACTION to Francois:  Put PE 157 into countdown.

ACTION to Francois:  Put PE 158 into countdown.

ACTION to Richard:  Look at PE156 at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/08/proposed-xml10-4e-and-xml11-2e-errata.html
#PE156
and comment.

----

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. Liam requests we discuss XML 1.1 deployment.

He listed three deployment blockers to XML 1.1 use:

1.  We broke compatibility: not all 1.0 documents will remain
well-formed XML if you put a 1.1 declaration on top of it.

2.  Not all software will support 1.1, so fewer people are
willing to (try to) use it.

3.  Some people want to put binary data within their XML,
but they are not well served by 1.1.  (Neither does 1.0,
but some folks hoped that 1.1 would solve this, and when
they found this was not the case, 1.1 held no benefit
for them.)
 
Liam suggests the way forward:

1.  Change XML 1.1 to relieve some of these anxieties:
revert both C0 and C1 control character handling to
be the way it is in 1.0.

2.  Allow all 1.x processors to process any 1.x document
for all x.  That was refined to:  allow any 1.x processor 
to process a document labeled with any 1.y version value 
even though such a processor may not make it to the
end of the document and/or produce the same results.

3.  If we reinstate the C1 controls, we've made a backward
incompatible change to 1.1, so we either need to make a 1.2
or to rescind 1.1 (or both).

Konrad asked how this might affect namespaces 1.1.  We might
have to version that to namespaces 1.2 also.


[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/2007Aug/0031

Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 22:14:43 UTC