Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 December 2

Attendees
---------
 Glenn
 Simon
 Norm
 Paul 
 Henry, W3C
 Henry, U of E

[6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 11]

Regrets
------- 
Richard
Daniel

Absent organizations
--------------------
A-SIT
Google
Innovimax
Daniel Veillard (with regrets)
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.

Our next telcon is December 16.

There will be no telcon on December 30th (the blue moon).

Our first telcon of 2010 will be on January 13th.
Norm gives regrets for Jan 13.

> 
> SC 34/WG 1 use of xml-model PI
> ------------------------------
> We had responded to an SC 34/WG1 request to be able to use xml-model
> for a PI target.  Our response is at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0011
> 
> We received a response at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Oct/0001
> to which Paul replied at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Oct/0021
> 
> But then Mohamed, as liaison, reported that there would be problems
> with JTC1 writing the spec and then having W3C publish it.
> 
> Paul sent email to SC34 rescinding our agreement to let them
> use xml-model until we can figure out how to go about it:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Oct/0039
> 
> Henry reports that IJ would be happy to see the WG produce a Note.
> 
> Paul wants the WG Note to be the complete spec so that someone
> can reference it.
> 
> Paul wants to draft the note first as a starting point from which
> ISO can write their spec--in coordination with us and as we redraft
> our Note to keep it in sync--and then when they have a final spec,
> we will finalize our Note with a reference to the ISO spec.
> 
> ----
> 
> 3023-bis
> --------
> A new proposed draft of 3023-bis is at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html
> 
> Paul sent comments on this latest draft at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Nov/0054
> They were mostly editorial, but Paul did request the addition of a
> para:
> 
>  Because applications are not required to support schemes other
>  than the 'element' scheme, use of other schemes can reduce
>  universal interoperability; such use SHOULD be carefully
>  considered in each case.
> 
> Henry is okay with that addition.
> 
> Paul sent email to Chris at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Nov/0121
> to request confirmation that Chris has seen these comments and
> plans to incorporate them.  No response to date.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> NS 1.0 3rd Ed PER is at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PER-xml-names-20090806/
> and the review was generally successful.  We had a few comments
> that we addressed; the DoC is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/10/disposition.html
> and the Rec-ready document is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-10-3e.html
> 
> The one outstanding issue from Bjoern remains at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2009Oct/0004
> 
> The wording in question was in 2nd Ed, so we will file a PE
> and consider fixing it in the 4th Ed.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Re-tell Bjoern our plan to consider this in an
> erratum but not change it in this 3rd Ed.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Record Bjoern's comment as a PE against NS 1.0.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Take NS 1.0 3rd Ed to Rec.
> 
> WG Consensus to take NS 1.0 3rd Ed to Rec despite the one outstanding
> objection.

We are hoping to have a transition telcon this Friday.

> 
> 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
> 
> At one point we thought we had Consensus:
> 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.
> 
> But they we reconsidered.  Henry sent further email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0048
> 
> We did agree that applying xml:id processing does not have
> any impact on the DTD/XSD validity of the document.
> 
> John re-summarized his thoughts at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0008
> 
> ACTION to Henry (and others):  Continue the xml:id issue
> discussion in email.
> 
> ---
> 
> 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 an updated DoC at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/05/xlinklc/
> 
> Paul summarized the open issues at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0045
> 
> Norm replied at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0009
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC accordingly.
> 
> The latest editor's draft (of the PR) is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/
> and a diff-with-the-last-CR draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/Overview-diff.html
> 
> Henry finds the DTD/RelaxNG/XSD fragments throughout the spec unhelpful
> and would like to remove them (leaving them only in the appendices).
> Henry specifically referenced the example immediately preceding 5.3.
> But this was in the CR, so we will probably leave it, but we will
> remove the default for xlink:type.
> 
> Henry has updated the DTDs and sent things to Norm.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Update the draft with the correct DTD, XSD, and RNC.
> 
> 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
> 
> Norm created an updated IR at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/ir.html
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Adding a mention of the test suite at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/03/xlink11-tests to the IR.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Create a diff between 1.0 and the 1.1 PR ready draft.
> 

ACTIONs to Norm continued.

> 
> 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
> 
> The latest issues document with CONSENSUS resolutions is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm
> 
> The latest editor's draft of AssocSS 1.0 2nd Edition is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/09/xml-stylesheet.html
> (2009 Nov 27 version).

Now dated December 2.

The WG has CONSENSUS to publish (in XML date space)
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/09/xml-stylesheet.html
(with minor edits to the SotD and pubrules issues) as a FPWD
of this PER.

ACTION to Henry and Paul:  Fill in the SotD, get it to
pass pubrules, and put it into (publicly readable) XML 
date space and then announce.

> 
> [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/2009Nov/0116
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 17:23:52 UTC