Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2008 August 27

Attendees
---------
 Konrad  xx:13
 Glenn
 Norm  
 Paul 
 Richard
 Henry

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

Regrets
------- 

Absent organizations
--------------------
Google
Daniel Veillard
François Yergeau


Norm gives regrets for Sept 10.


> 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.
> 
> We have been asked to review CURIEs.  See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2008Aug/0008
> for the message and some background.
> 
> Paul sent in our review at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JulSep/0017
> 
> ---
> 
> October Technical Plenary
> -------------------------
> The next Technical Plenary is scheduled for October in Cannes:
> http://www.w3.org/2008/10/TPAC/Overview.html
> 
> As of the present, it looks like the only attendees
> will be Henry and Norm, so despite our earlier decision
> to have an XML Core WG f2f there, it appears that will
> no longer be feasible.  Unless others indicate plans
> to attend by the time of this week's telcon, I will
> inform W3C staff that XML Core will not be having
> a f2f in Cannes.
> 

The WG agreed that we will not hold a f2f at TPAC.

ACTION to Paul:  Let the tp folks know of our change in plans.

> 
> 3.  C14N 1.1
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#c14n1.1
> 
> 
> 4.  XML 1.0
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-errata
> 
> The XML 1.0 5th Edition PER has been published at
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PER-xml-20080205/
> 
> The PER period ended 16 May 2008. 
> 
> We need to have at least three implementations that 
> pass the test suite for each of the errata that have 
> been newly applied to the 5th Edition. 
> 
> A preliminary implementation report is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/01/xml10-5e-implementation
> 
> ACTION to Richard, Henry:  Add a test to the XML 1.0 5th Ed 
> Test Suite about version=1.7 documents.

Done.

> 
> A preliminary implementation report is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/01/xml10-5e-implementation
> 
> DV has implemented XML 1.0 5th Ed and is working on testing.
> He will let us know when we can add what to the IR at which
> point we will be able to ask Henry to push for a Directors
> Decision and go to Rec.
> 
> 
> 5.  XML 1.1
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml1.1
> 
> 
> 6.  XML Test Suite.
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-test-suite
> 
> Henry/Richard discussed some test suite issues raised by 
> Frans Englich:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-testsuite/2007Mar/ 
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Construct a test case for the XML test suite 
> issues raised by Frans Englich:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-testsuite/2007Mar/ 
> 

ACTION to Richard continued.

> 
> 7.  Namespaces in XML 1.0/1.1
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#ns1.0 and
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#ns1.1.
> 
> Richard has partially updated the NS PE doc at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata.html
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Put NPE27, 28, and 30 into countdown.

Done, in countdown until Sept 10.

> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Fill in a proposed resolution for NPE29.

ACTION to Richard continued.

> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Check amongst W3C staff to see how they
> would feel about us pushing forward a Namespace 1.0 3rd
> Edition PER that included as an "erratum" the additional
> capability (from NS 1.1) to undeclare a namespace prefix.
> And add to that action the possibility of changing namespace
> names from URIs to IRIs in NS1.0 via an "erratum".

Henry checked, and consensus was against adding undeclaring 
as an erratum, though IRIs could be an erratum.

Henry suggests we could publish a new version of Namespaces
and what would be in there would be NS 1.1 except for the
sentence that says this document applies only to XML 1.1 
documents.  It could perhaps be a new edition of NS 1.1 or 
it could be NS 1.2.

Norm thinks it's madness to get XML 1.x and NS 1.x out of sync.
He thinks no one will bother to implement NS 1.2.

Paul asked if Microsoft supports undeclaring of namespaces 
in their XML 1.0 support.  Henry did some checking and 
concluded they did not.

Richard thinks the result of NS 1.2 and an erratum to NS 1.0
is equivalent, so he doesn't see the point of refusing to do
and erratum.  Henry says it's mostly a process issue.

Konrad says that people working with the DOM or other 
unserialized form can create documents that cannot be 
serialized without the ability to undeclare namespaces.

Henry points out that, if we can't get undeclaring working
for XML 1.0, then (he feels) we can't deprecate XML 1.1
because that will be the only way one can get undeclaring
of namespaces.

Henry suggested we apply the URI -> IRI erratum to NS 1.0
and take that to PER and ask for opinions about what to do
about undeclaring.

Henry suggested xml:insulate.  Richard points out this 
wouldn't be conforming to either NS 1.0 nor NS 1.1.

We didn't come to any final conclusions before time ran out.

> 
> Paul started a thread (imported from www-tag) about whether
> NS 1.0 should allow IRIs (or LEIRIs?) as namespace names:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2008Aug/0005
> 
> John sent email asking the I18N Core how they feel about
> changing NS1.0 to allow IRIs (instead of just URIs) for
> namespace names:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2008JulSep/0049
> 

And there was some email discussion--see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2008JulSep/thread.html#msg49

John was not on the call, and we did not discuss this on this telcon.

> 
> 8.  LEIRIs
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#leiri
> 
> A summary of what specs need to be revised to reference LEIRIs is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Dec/0045
> 
> Martin's has made a new latest version available at 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-bis-04
> 
> Martin has asked us to review it and supply tests; see:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2008Aug/0002
> 
> Addison Phillips of I18N Core recommends we consider publishing 
> LEIRIs as a WG Note; see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2008Aug/0004
> 
> 
> 9.  XML Base 2nd Edition 2nd PER
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-base
> 
> The (second) XML Base (Second Edition) PER has been published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PER-xmlbase-20080320/
> and announced at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008JanMar/0112
> 
> The XML Base PER review period ended 30 June 2008.
> 
> We have some comments in the comments list:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/0003
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/0011
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/0012
> 
> We discussed the XHTML WG comment at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/0011
> a bit.
> 
> Norm responded to 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/0011
> at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008JulSep/0000
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Modify XML Base to clarify the meaning of 
> C0 controls and add an example that uses an IRI.

Done.  Richard's latest draft as of 2008 August 27 is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/xmlbase-2e/

> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Review and suggest a response to
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/0003

Done at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2008Aug/0032

> and develop a DoC document.

ACTION to Richard continued.

> 
> Richard questions whether we need a DoC between PER and Rec.
> Paul thinks we should have one.
> 
> We noted that the XHMTL WG raised a question about process at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/0012
> saying:
> 
>  We are not convinced that the proposed changes fall
>  within the process guidelines of what new features
>  may be added to a recommendation.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Check with W3M about whether there is any
> process concern with our XML Base PER.

ACTION to Henry continued.

> 
> 
> 10.  XLink 1.1.
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xlink1.1
> 
> The earlier XLink CR was published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ 
> 
> The XLink 1.1 LC was published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xlink11-20080331/
> 
> The LC review period ended 16 May 2008.
> 
> Norm has prepared a DoC at 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/05/xlinklc/
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Continue to get the XSD for
> XLink at an accessible URI.
> 
> There's an open question about whether the XSD/DTD 
> should default the xlink:type attribute value. 
> None of this effects our last call because the
> XSD/DTD are not normative.
> 
> John asked whether we should have two schemas, one for
> each of our conformance levels.
> 
> ACTION to Henry, John:  Think about having a basic level
> conformance XSD for XLink.
> 
> Paul asks us to consider skipping CR and going directly to PR.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Review the history and make a recommendation
> as to whether we should skip CR and go directly to PR.
> 
> 
> 11.  XInclude 3rd Edition
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude
> 
> XInclude 2nd Edition is at:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xinclude-20061115
> 
> See http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude for
> LEIRI-related changes for the 3rd Edition.
> 
> ACTION to Daniel: Produce a PER-ready draft of XInclude 3rd Ed
> with appropriate references to the IRI RFC for LEIRIs.
> 
> 
> [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/2008Jul/0026
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 16:04:37 UTC