Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 April 22

Attendees
---------
Konrad
John  xx:13
Glenn 
Mohamed
Norm
Paul 
Richard
Henry
Daniel

[9 organizations (9 with proxies) present out of 11]

Regrets
------- 

Absent organizations
--------------------
Opera
François Yergeau


> 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.
> 
> The next Technical Plenary (and AC meeting) week (TPAC week) 
> will be Nov 2-6 in Santa Clara, California:
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html#Future
> 
> The XML Core WG is tentatively planning to meet f2f 
> during that week.
> 
> ----
> 
> Addison Phillips of I18N sent email about 
> Unicode Normalization in XML 1.0 5th Ed.; see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0019
> 
> Paul provided a status update to Addison and I18N at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Mar/0005
> 
> We decided to add a note; Paul sent draft wording at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0019
> 

ACTION to Paul:  Put it into countdown.

> -----
> 
> HTML request for clearer XML serialization
> ------------------------------------------
> Henry raised the issue that HTML folks think the XML
> spec is broken because it doesn't define error recovery
> and doesn't discuss serialization.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Send email to the XML Core WG list
> outlining the suggestion to define a serialization spec
> including the rationale.
> 

ACTION to Henry continued.

> -----
> 
> Overlap between Powder and LEIRIs
> ---------------------------------
> At
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Mar/0006
> Henry writes:
> 
> Please review section 2.1.3 of the forthcoming draft of Protocol for
> Web Description Resources (POWDER): Grouping of Resources [1]:  It
> says things about e.g. entity expansion which I think at risk of
> confusing proper layering, and it also doesn't seem to recognise the
> LEIRI spec.
> 
> This spec just went back to Last Call.
> 
> John reviewed especially section 2.1.3 of the POWDER spec at
> http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-grouping/20090309.html#canon
> and only had an issue with spaces and + signs; see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0013
> 
> Per Thomas Roessler at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0018
> the WG may have already dealt with this issue.

ACTION to Paul:  Send in John's comment on the POWDER spec at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0013
to public-powderwg@w3.org.

> 
> -----
> 
> Pointer Methods in RDF
> ----------------------
> The ERT WG has issued a FPWD entitled "Pointer Methods in RDF":
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-Pointers-in-RDF-20090310/
> 
> Paul sent in the XML Core WG comment at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0020
> 
> -----
> 
> ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 as requested at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0001
> that they be allowed to use "xml-model" as a processing instruction
> target name token.
> 
> John thinks we should approve this.  Henry worries that people
> will then expect that this is something from W3C, but he will
> not stand in the way.
> 
> We should consider adding entries for xml-stylesheet and xml-model 
> to the xml namespace document at http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace.
> 
> We need a decision, action, and response to this request.

We believe the suggested syntax will parallel that of xml-stylesheet.

If we allow the use of xml-model, we would want it to be generic
enough to reference any kind of schema.

They would have to address the interaction of xsi:schemaLocation
with xml-model.

We would want to be able to review their drafts.

CONSENSUS to approve use the xml-model token based on the
above understanding.

ACTION to Paul:  Draft a response and send it to the XML Core list
for review.

> 
> 
> 3.  XML 1.0
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-errata
> 
> The XML 1.0 5th Edition Recommendation is at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/
> 
> Henry forwarded some email from Makoto about the 5th Ed at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0024
>
> 
> 4.  XML Test Suite.
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-test-suite
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 
> 5.  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.
> 
> The NS 1.0 2nd Ed Errata document is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/xml-names-errata
> 
> The NS PE doc is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata.html
> 
> Richard added some discussion at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata.html#npe29
> The WG agreed with his direction and asked that he go forward with it.

Henry has indicated that the proposed resolution is complete now.

CONSENSUS to approve the proposed resolution.

ACTION to Henry:  Publish NPE29 as an erratum and move forward
toward producing NS 1.0 3rd Edition.

John proposed a resolution to NPE22 at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0042

CONSENSUS to close NPE22 with no action/changes.

NPE20 is to make nsnames IRIs in NS 1.0.  Currently, they are URIs
in NS 1.0 and IRIs in NS 1.1.

John wants to close this with no action.  Because we do character
by character comparison, an unescaped IRI and its escaped (URI)
version are two different namespace names, so we don't want to 
allow IRIs as nsnames in NS 1.0.

Henry is unsure, but doesn't object.

ACTION to Paul:  Email I18N to inform them that we plan to close
both NPE20 and NPE22 with no action/changes.

> 
> Whether we put ns prefix undeclaration into NS 1.0 3rd Ed
> remains an open issue.

CONSENSUS not to add ns prefix undeclaration to NS 1.0 3rd Ed.

ACTION to Paul:  Email XML Security WG to let them know we plan
NOT to add ns prefix undeclaration to NS 1.0 3rd Ed.

ACTION to Henry:  Close NPE20 and NPE22 with no action/changes.

> 
> 6.  LEIRIs
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#leiri
> 
> The WG Note defining LEIRIs is at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-leiri-20081103/
> 
> The following specs need to be revised to reference LEIRIs:
> XML 1.0 6th Edition
> XML 1.1 3rd Edition 
> XML Base 2nd Edition
> XLink 1.1 (First Edition)
> XInclude 3rd Edition 
> 
> 7.  xml:id
> 
> The xml:id Recommendation is at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-xml-id-20050909/
> 
> John Cowan submitted a proposed erratum at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jan/0009
> and the WG had Consensus to do as follows:
> 
>  The sentence "A document that uses xml:id attributes that 
>  have a declared type other than xs:ID will always generate 
>  xml:id errors" in Appendix D.3 should be deleted.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Update the Errata document at
> http://www.w3.org/2005/09/xml-id-errata
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Think about the appropriateness of
> the same sentence in Appendix D.2.
> 
> There was some more recent email on this at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/thread.html#msg26

Henry sent further email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0048

Richard, Norm, DV, John, HT had a vigorous discussion,
but we ran out of time.  We will need to continue this
in email.

We agree that applying xml:id processing does not have
any impact on the DTD/XSD validity of the document.

Richard pointed out the following note in XML Base
(just before section 3.1):

 This specification does not give the xml:base attribute
 any special status as far as XML validity is concerned.
 In a valid document the attribute must be declared in
 the DTD, and similar considerations apply to other schema
 languages.

and suggested a similar note should go into xml:id in D.1.

---

There was also some email about some typos for which we (Henry)
should process an editorial erratum:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0050

ACTION to Henry:  Process an xml:id erratum to correct the typos; ref
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0050

> 
> 8.  XML Base 2nd Edition 2nd Rec
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-base
> 
> The XML Base 2nd Edition Recommendation is at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xmlbase-20090128/
> 
> 
> 9.  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 Norm:  Update the DoC.

Done.  Paul summarized the open issues at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0045

> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Update XLink 1.1 to refer to the LEIRI note.

Done.

> 
> 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.
> 
> ACTION to Henry, John:  Produce a basic level
> conformance XSD and RelaxNG schema for XLink.

ACTION to Henry, John continued.

> 
> We plan to skip CR and going directly to PR.
> 
> Paul drafted a PR transition request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Mar/0013
> 
> The Implementation Report at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/01/xlink11-implementation
> is pitiful.  We'll need to augment this to be able to request PR.
> 
> ----
> 
> Simon Cox, on behalf of the Open Geospatial Consortium, has
> asked some questions about the XLink 1.1 XML Schema:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2009JanMar/0004
> and ht replied:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2009JanMar/0005

This is Issue 8, but Paul doesn't see that there is anything
to address other than to move forward to PR.

> 
> 
> 10.  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.
> 
> 
> 11.  Associating Stylesheets.
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-ss
> 
> Associating stylesheets with XML version 1.0 is at:
> http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/
> 
> The Errata document is at:
> http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/errata
> 
> Simon has requested we consider revisions; see his email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0002
> and his suggested draft at
> http://simon.html5.org/specs/xml-stylesheet5
> 
> See also Simon's email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0014
> outlining various issues.
> 
> Paul sent email giving Arbortext's behavior and other comments at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0022
> 
> Henry sent email giving Saxon behavior in various erroneous cases at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0025
> 
> Paul sent email with suggested resolutions at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0029
> and there has been some follow-up email.

As Simon was not on the call, we did not discuss this topic this week,
but WG members should review Paul's email and reply with their thoughts.

> paul
> 
> [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/2009Apr/0012
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 16:27:23 UTC