Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 May 6

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

[7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 11]

Regrets
------- 
Konrad

Absent organizations
--------------------
A-SIT
Google
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
> 
> We decided to add a note; Paul sent draft wording at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0019
> which is in countdown until our next telcon and informed I18N at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0053
> and Martin made a reply at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0066
> then Addison also replied (suggesting I18N wanted something more) at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0069
> 

We will leave our draft erratum in countdown for another couple
weeks to see what I18N has to suggest.

> -----
> 
> 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.

> 
> -----
> 
> 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 might want to consider adding entries for xml-stylesheet 
> and xml-model to the xml namespace document at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace.
> 
> Paul sent a draft response (to the XML Core list) at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0056
> 

ACTION to Paul:  Send the response to SC 34's request for xml-model.

> 
> 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.
> 

ACTIONs to Henry continued.

> 
> 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
> 
> Richard, Norm, DV, John, HT had a vigorous discussion during
> our telcon of April 22 that we did not complete.  We will need 
> to continue this in email.

John summarized his thoughts at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0008

Those on the call had not had a chance to read and reply.

ACTION to Henry (and others):  Continue the xml:id issue
discussion in email.

> 
> We did 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
> 

ACTION to Henry continued.

> 
> 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.

> 
> 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.

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
> 
> 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.

We had a brief discussion of how strong (e.g., MUST versus SHOULD)
we should make our revisions, but came to no overall conclusions.
We need to evaluate each case, and those on the call had not had
time to review Paul's latest suggestions in detail.

ACTION to everyone besides Simon and Paul:  Review the latest
xml-stylesheet email and indicate preferences for resolutions.

> 
> 
> 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/0051
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 15:39:30 UTC