- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:04:51 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Glenn Mohamed Norm Paul Henry, W3C Henry, U of E [6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 11] Regrets ------- Richard Simon Absent organizations -------------------- A-SIT Google 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. > > We will CANCEL our next 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/ Registration closes this Friday. Only Henry and Norm expected, so there might not be much of a meeting. > > ---- > > 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 > > Our next action is to inform SC 34/WG1 when we have a public draft > of our Associating Stylesheets 2nd Edition. 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. We could write a WG Note, but that wouldn't officially get the same kind of review as a Rec track document. ACTION to Henry: Investigate the possibilities of having XML Core WG write an xml-model spec. ACTION to Paul: Write to SC34 rescinding our agreement to let them use xml-model until we can figure out how to go about it. > > ---- > > 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 > > ACTION to Henry, Francois: Review this 3023-bis draft. ACTION to Henry, Francois continued. > > 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 > ACTION to Henry: Add something about xml-stylesheet to http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace. > > 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 are some comments we need to address at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/10/disposition.html Issue barclay-1 --------------- accept/implement all editorial suggestions Issue matson-1: use NS 1.1 defn of NCName in NS 1.0 3rd Ed ----------------------------------------------------------- The defn in NS 1.0 3rd Ed handles both XML 1.0 and 1.1, so we cannot switch the defn in NS 1.0 3rd Ed to match that in NS 1.1. No change. Henry will explain why to the commentor. Issue menon-1: discuss xinclude handling in NS 1.0 3rd Ed --------------------------------------------------------- No. See the xinclude spec for the discussion. Issue bjoern-1: make URI syntax requirement an NSC -------------------------------------------------- We will change the wording of the first para in section 8 so that the "processors not required" wording matches that in section 3 where we say that--for document conformance--the value of a namespace decl must be a uri reference or the empty string. Otherwise, we will not change the spec (there are many cases of MUST that aren't NSC's). The WG has CONSENSUS on all the above resolutions. ACTION to Henry: Respond to commentors, update DoC, update spec, and take NS 1.0 3rd Ed to Rec. > > > 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 > > We had some discussion at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Sep/thread.html#msg24 > and > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Oct/thread.html#msg14 > > ACTION to Simon, Henry: Produce another draft reflecting > resolutions to various WG comments. ACTION to Simon, Henry continued. > > [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/0016 >
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 16:06:24 UTC