Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 July 15

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

[5 organizations (5 with proxies) present out of 11]

Regrets
------- 
Richard
Simon
Mohamed

Absent organizations
--------------------
A-SIT
Google
Innovimax (with regrets)
Opera (with regrets)
Daniel Veillard
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/2009/11/TPAC/Overview.html
> The XML Core WG is planning to meet f2f during that week.
> Registration is now open:
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC09/
> 
> ----
> 
> 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
> 
> We have agreed on a note to add; see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jun/0059
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Process the suggested additional note
> as an erratum to XML 1.0 5th Edition.
> 
> -----
> 
> 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.
> 
> Simon added his understanding of the issue at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jun/0007
> (second half of the message) and a thread starting with a
> reply from John ensued at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jun/thread.html#msg8
> 
> Perhaps with this email beginning, Henry only needs to reply
> to that thread to complete the following:
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Send email to the XML Core WG list
> outlining the suggestion to define a serialization spec
> including the rationale.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> We closed NPE20 and NPE22 with no action needed; Paul informed I18N:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0055
> 
> We had CONSENSUS not to add ns prefix undeclaration to NS 1.0 3rd Ed.
> Paul informed XML Security at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0054
> and Frederick replied (with no concerns) at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0058
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Close NPE20 and NPE22 with no action/changes.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Publish NPE29 as an erratum and move forward
> toward producing NS 1.0 3rd Edition.
> 

Henry is making some progress--see
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-10-3e.html
but actions continue.

> 
> 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.
> 
> ACTION to Norm: Generate an up to date editor's draft (with diffs)
> and work with Henry to determine exactly what/where are the latest
> DTDs and schemas.

http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/

ACTION to Henry: Provide updated DTD and XSD.

ACTION to John: Verify that the RNC in
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/
is correct.

A draft with diffs from last CR is at:
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/Overview-diff.html
(ignore the DTDs/XSDs in this one).

> 
> 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.
> 
> ----
> 
> 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.
> 
> Consensus not to default xlink:type and not to require href.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Update the DTDs (both for full
> and simple conformance) so that the xlink:type attribute has no
> default (e.g., is #IMPLIED).
> 
> ----
> 
> 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.

> 
> ----
> 
> There was also discussion about just what simple conformance is:
> does it require href or not?  On the July 1 telcon, we decided that
> simple conformance does not require href.  Norm has specific
> wording in mind.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Modify the XLink 1.1 spec to reflect our latest
> wording on simple conformance.

Done--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/

> 
> ----
> 
> Henry sent an XML Schema for simple-conformant XLink at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0019
> 
> ACTION to Norm, John:  Review Henry's candidate basic level
> conformance XSD.
> 
> John sent RelaxNG schemas at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0022
> 
> Mohamed reviewed the RNG schema and thought it was fine.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Review John's RelaxNG schemas.
> 
> ----
> 
> 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.
> 
> ACTION to Norm: Dig up more for the XLink 1.1 implementation report.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> As of 2009 July 7, Paul has updated the latest issues document at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm
> with suggested resolutions, occasionally with some notes.
> 
> Please read and send email with objections/discussions.

Those on the call went through the potentially contentious
proposed resolutions and came to general agreement.

Henry will send email with an updated suggestion for issue 15.

ACTION to Paul:  Update the issues document with final
proposed resolutions to be put into countdown.

Once Paul sends out the update, all WG members should
review and raise any final objections before our next telcon.

> 
> Once we get agreement on the resolutions, we need to decide
> if we are going to create errata for each change or just
> create a PER.  Henry, do we need to create separate errata,
> or can we just create a 2nd Edition PER?  I'm hoping for
> the latter.

ACTION to Henry: Check to ensure it is acceptable to create
a draft PER but no errata.

> 
> In either case, we will need an editor for the PER.
> Any volunteers?  (I am not aware of any source for the
> document except the HTML itself, so I assume we would
> just edit it.)

Henry is willing to be the editor of the 2nd Edition.

We discussed that we should add a conformance statement
to the spec.  We tried a few suggested wordings including:

An application (as defined in [XML]) conforms to this spec
if is processing all XML processing instructions whose
[PITarget] is 'xml-stylesheet' as specified by this spec.
 
but didn't get complete closure.  Henry will send some wording
to email that we can kick around.

> 
> 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/2009Jul/0002
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 16:08:26 UTC