Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 October 7

Attendees
---------
Glenn
Simon
John
Paul 
Henry, W3C
Henry, U of E
Daniel
François

[8 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 11]

Regrets
------- 
Richard
Norm
Mohamed

Absent organizations
--------------------
A-SIT
Innovimax (with regrets)
MarkLogic (with regrets)


> 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 October 21.  We will cancel the telcon
> of November 4 due to the Technical Plenary.  After that,
> the only telcons remaining in this year are those on
> November 18, December 2, and December 16.
> 
> ----
> 
> 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/
> 
> ----
> 
> 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.
> 
> Henry suggests reading
> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200909/msg00072.html
> but I still don't get it, so we should plan to discuss this
> on the call this week.  My message requesting clarification is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Sep/0022
> (as yet with no follow up).

Followup by Henry at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Oct/0011
where he suggests the possibility of producing a best practice 
WG Note about XML serialization.  Simon followed up saying we should 
also discuss error recovery by the XML parser when it encounters 
something that is not well-formed.

Paul and DV aren't sure we get the problem, and Paul certainly
doesn't feel we should discuss error recovery--the XML spec
already says not to recover from well-formedness errors.

John is not sure it is in the WG's remit to write best practice
notes.  Henry figures if we were to do this, no one would complain.

DV thinks how to serialize depends on the context and that we
would get into a big rathole trying to write best practices
for serialization.

A call for editor did not raise any volunteers.

We will let this rest at least for now, perhaps to die.

> 
> ----
> 
> 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
> 
> I received a partial response from our liaison which I have
> archived at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2009Sep/0011
> (member-only) [at Jirka's request, but we can minute our discussion in
> these minutes that will be posted to our publicly readable archive].
> 
> We then received a response at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Oct/0001

ACTION to Paul:  Respond to the SC 34/WG1 response about doing
a W3C Note in parallel with the ISO publication for xml-model.


> 3023-bis
> --------
> A new draft of 3023-bis is at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-03.html

ACTION to Henry, Francois:  Review this 3023-bis draft.


> 
> 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 was in PER at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PER-xml-names-20090806/
> until last week.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Provide a status update on the NS 1.0 3rd Ed PER.

Henry says we are ready to go to Rec.

CONSENSUS:  The WG requests that NS 1.0 3rd Ed go to Rec.

ACTION to Paul and/or Henry:  Submit a transition/publication request.

> 
> 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

Done.

> 
> 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
> 
> We are still fiddling to get the correct DTDs/XSDs/RNCs in.
> John sent email about this at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-
> wg/2009Jul/0039.html
> 
> 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).

Done.

> 
> 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 sent an XML Schema for simple-conformant XLink at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0019
> 
> 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
> and there were some comments on the list at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Sep/thread.html#msg24

We discussed several issues.

The first edition of the spec allowed the xml-stylesheet PI anywhere
in the prolog including the internal subset and even including
the external subset or other external parameter entity (though
it said such a PI in an external entity might get ignored).

We tentatively decided for this 2nd Edition to disallow the 
xml-stylesheet PI in the doctypedecl, meaning that such a PI
would not be an xml-stylesheet PI if it occurred in the
internal subset (or any external entity).

ACTION to Henry:  Check some browsers for what they do with
an xml-stylesheet PI in the internal subset.

ACTION to Paul:  Check what Arbortext does with an xml-stylesheet 
PI in the internal subset.

ACTION to Simon, Henry:  Produce another draft reflecting 
resolutions to various WG comments.


> [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/2009Aug/0026
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 16:40:31 UTC