W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2009

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 November 18

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:12:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3021178253E@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

John xx:13
Henry, W3C
Henry, U of E

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


Absent organizations
Marklogic (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).


> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 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.  One
> solution would be for us to write the spec (WG Note or Rec?) and
> then ISO would reference it.
> ACTION to Henry:  Investigate the possibilities of having XML Core WG
> write an xml-model spec.

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.

We talked about details.

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.

> 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
> ----
> 3023-bis
> --------
> A new draft of 3023-bis is at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-04.html
> I gather this was discussed at TPAC, and a new proposed draft is at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html
> ACTION to Henry:  Provide notes or at least some summary of whatever
> discussion occurred at TPAC.

Henry, Norm, and Chris discussed 3023-bis at TPAC and redrafted
parts about fragment identifiers.

> Paul sent comments on this latest draft at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Nov/0054

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.

ACTION to Paul:  Make sure Chris has seen these comments.

> ----
> XHTML character entity support
> ------------------------------
> Starting at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Nov/0000
> there was quite a thread that I can't really follow.  I'm assuming
> there is nothing for XML Core to do here.
> ----
> XML Entity Definitions
> ----------------------
> The latest MathML WG almost-LC of XML Entity Definitions for Characters
> is at http://www.w3.org/2003/entities/2007doc/
> Unless I hear otherwise, I'll assume we have no comments.
> ----
> XML5
> ----
> Simon forwarded an email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Nov/0082
> about replacing XML 1.x with XML5.  I'm assuming that there is
> nothing for XML Core to do/say at this time.

At present, there is nothing for our WG to do here until and
unless the W3C membership recharters us to develop a way to
take non-XML and make it XML.

> 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 successful.  The WG approved publication as a Rec.
> ACTION to Henry:  Submit a transition/publication request for
> NS 1.0 3rd Ed to go to Rec.
> There seems to be an outstanding issue at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2009Oct/0004
> ACTION to Henry:  Suggest how we might handle the NS 1.0 3rd Ed
> push back from Bjoern Hoehrmann.

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.

Consensus to take NS 1.0 3rd Ed to Rec despite the one outstanding

> 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 13 version).
> Paul sent some comments, the latest at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Nov/0079
> with some replies from Simon at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Nov/0081

Paul sent "remaining issues" email at
with the following issues:

more restrictive location for xml-stylesheet PIs
We probably need to allow, but discourage, x-s PIs in the
internal and external subsets.

ACTION to Henry:  Suggest some actual wording.

constraints on pseudo-attribute values
Paul is concerned that the document constraints on the values 
of the pseudo-attributes (1) were not what we decided when
discussing issues earlier and (2) are in some cases more
restrictive than what the 1st edition requires (even by
reference to HTML4).

Henry isn't sure about the whole processor/document dicotomy
on constraints.  (For the record, Paul didn't expect that
dicotomy either and thought we'd just stick to constraints
on processors, but I think I can live with constraints on
documents as long as we can agree on those constraints.)

Note on same document reference from the PI
The 1st Ed has a note that is no longer in the draft 2nd Ed.
Paul wondered if we should include it, and Henry did thinks so.

Paul still hates acknowledgement sections and would like to
see it deleted.  Simon wants it.  No one else has expressed
an opinion, and perhaps no one else cares.

I note that the Editors are listed as Simon and Henry, but
not James.  It has been customary to include editors of
previous editions and add names to later editions.  I suggest
that we put back James' name as the first entry in the list
of editors.

Given that there are no Acknowledgements in the 1st Edition,
I submit that the status quo for this spec is for there to
be no Acknowledgements section.  Therefore, if no one else
expresses an opinion, there will be no Acknowledgements.  
If we get a majority of WG members expressing a preference
for adding an Acknowledgements section, we will do so.

> 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/2009Oct/0035
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 17:13:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:40 UTC