Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 September 12

Attendees
---------
 Paul 
 Konrad
 Norm
 Richard 
 Henry
 Liam
 John xx:17

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

Regrets
------- 
François 
Daniel (proxy to the chair)

Absent organizations
--------------------
IBM
François Yergeau (with regrets)
Daniel Veillard (with regrest, proxy to the chair)


> 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.
> 
> 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.html#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.

Henry reports his suggestion was well-received, but we
await an actual response.

Once we get a response, we need to press for a draft,
then we can take XLink 1.1 to PR and XML Base to PER
even though we'll have to wait for an RFC to take 
those specs to Rec.

> 
> 
> 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.

ACTION to Richard continued.

> 
> ----
> 
> 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. 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 Wednesday, 12 September 2007 16:09:26 UTC