Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 June 3 from Norman Walsh on 2009-06-03 (public-xml-core-wg@w3.org from June 2009)

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:18:14 -0400
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2k53tz6q1.fsf@nwalsh.com>
> We had an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, June 3.
>
> See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents
> and other information.  If you have additions to the agenda, please
> email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon.
>
> Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and
> completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it
> at the beginning of the call.
>
> Paul send regrets--Norm will chair.

Roll call:
  Norm, Konrad, Glenn, Henry, John, Simon

Regrets:
  Paul

Informal conversation:


Norm failed to make progress on XLink 1.1 but remains perpetually
optimistic that he'll do better next week.

> Agenda
> ======
> 1. Accepting the minutes from the last telcon [3] and

Accepted.

Today's agenda?

Accepted.

>    the current task status [2] (have any questions, comments,
>    or corrections ready by the beginning of the call).
>
> 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
>
> We decided to add a note; Paul sent draft wording at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0019
>
> I18N came back with some modifications at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0023
>
> JohnC was okay with the I18N proposal.
>
> Paul made a reply at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0025
>
> I'd really like to hear from others on this, especially Richard/Henry
> and Glenn (as well as others).

Henry thought it was verbose but ok. Liam suggests that the sentence

[[
A document is still well-formed, even if it is not in a normalized form.
]]

should be changed to.

[[
A document may still be well-formed even if it is not in a normalized form.
]]

With this proposed change, let's put this in 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.

Pending.

> 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

We're making progress on this issue.

> 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/ 

Henry may take over this action, but we'll leave it pending for today.

> 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 made some progress on the Namespaces spec, but needs to
coordinate with Richard before more progress can be made. Closed
issues that we decided to close w/o action.

> 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.

Please try to push this forward 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.

Continue.

> ----
>
> 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.
>
> Can someone remind us what this is about?  What exactly is the question?
> Is it that it should be defaulted but isn't, or is shouldn't be
> defaulted but it is?  And on which element?  And in which DTD/XSD?
>
> And what's the answer to the question?
>
> ----
>
> 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.

Continued.

> 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.

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.
>
> ACTION to Norm: Dig up more for the XLink 1.1 implementation report.

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.

Continued.

> 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.
>
> I believe the email exchange to date--mostly between Simon and 
> myself--covers all the open issues on the Assoc Stylesheet spec.
>
> At this point, it is necessary for the rest of the WG to review
> the emails and take a stand on things.
>
> Specifically, there are several places where we need to decide
> what will be MUSTs and what will be SHOULDs.  Of course, the
> rest of the decisions need to be reviewed and approved also.
>
> ACTION to everyone besides Simon and Paul:  Review the latest
> xml-stylesheet email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0029
> and followups and indicate preferences for resolutions.

Henry commits to review this before the next meeting. Ditto Norm, who
has a few comments in a half-composed email message.

> [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/2009May/0010

Any other business?

Adjourned.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Things work out best for those who make
http://nwalsh.com/            | the best of the way things work out.
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 15:19:00 UTC