- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:11:48 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Attendees --------- Glenn Paul Henry John [4 organizations (4 with proxies) present out of 10] no quorum Regrets ------- Mohamed Jirka Absent organizations -------------------- MarkLogic W3C Innovimax (with regrets) Jirka Kosek (with regrets) Daniel Veillard Opera We did not have quorum, so we did not have an official WG telcon, but those on the call did have some discussion. > Agenda > ====== > 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). > No quorum. > > 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews. > > TPAC Nov 1-5 in Lyons, France > ----------------------------- > Paul indicated that XML Core tentatively plans to have a f2f > at TPAC, and we are currently scheduled for Monday/Tuesday > 1-2 November 2010. > > Likely: Henry, Mohamed, Liam, Daniel > Unlikely: Glenn, Paul, Simon, Norm, John > > Registration is now open; see http://www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/ > > TAG concern wrt 3023bis, +xml media types and fragids > ----------------------------------------------------- > Henry sent email about this at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jun/0006 > > 3023bis says that the +xml implies that the resource is suitable for > processing by generic xml processors. And it says that such xml > processors should handle fragment ids. Specifically, handling the > fragment identifiers in an rdf+xml document is not something that a > generic xml processor could do. > > The TAG was leaning toward removing the statement from 3023bis that > says that fragid syntax and semantics is something that any generic > xml processor can handle in a +xml resource. Noah sent email and > Norm has replied. See the thread at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/thread.html#msg125 > > Somewhat related, Henry sent email about XML fragid interpretation at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jun/0025 > > Norm and John prefer to allow RDF (and others) to be an exception, > but the rule is that the default treatment is as specified in > XPointer Framework. > > Norm and John (among others) weighed in; see the thread at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/thread.html#msg125 > and > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jul/thread.html#msg0 > > Norm's latest (as of July 26, posted July 14) is at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jul/0020 > > Per Noah's email at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Aug/0003 > there will be no new status until September. > > > 3. XML 1.0--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-errata > > > 4. XML Test Suite. > > See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-test-suite > > ACTION to Henry: 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 > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#ns1.0 > and http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#ns1.1. > > > 6. LEIRIs--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#leiri > > > 7. xml:id--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-id > > > 8. XML Base 2nd Ed--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-base > > > 9. XLink 1.1--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xlink1.1 > > Mohamed asked if xlink should point to xlink11; see > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Aug/0003 > > We had a discussion on August 11 where many members expressed > concern with xlink pointing to xlink11, but we were under the > impression that we had little choice, so we sent Ian email > pointing out that "xlink" should now point to the XLink 1.1 spec. > > However, Ian response did not match either Henry or my expectations. > The interchange went: > > > > In fact, most of us on the WG weren't really thrilled with > > > the suggestion, > > > > Hmm, then why are we doing it? > > > > > but Henry explained that this is something > > > you would probably want to do as soon as you noticed--and > > > I remember you doing this with XSL 1.0 and XSL 1.1 over > > > the WG's objection--so I figure it was only proper to let > > > you know about this one. > > > > I have no urge to do it unless it's useful. Who wants this? > > > > _ Ian > > So that puts it back to us to decide what we want to do here. We note that both Mohamed and Norm are absent, and they were tending toward wanting xlink to point to 1.1. John now thinks xlink should continue to point to 1.0. Henry points out that the TR page mentions "XLink" only once, and when you link to that, you get 1.1, so he is happy with the status quo. Henry would like to be able to edit XLink 1.0 in place to mention 1.1, but he's not sure Ian will let us do that. We could go the PER route to do this is we wanted. ACTION to Paul: Ask Ian about the possibilities of editing XLink 1.0 in place to mention 1.1. > > > 10. XInclude 3rd Ed--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude > > > 11. Associating Stylesheets. > > See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-ss > > Our latest public draft is at > http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/04/xml-stylesheet/ > > The transition request for AssocSS is at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Apr/0034 > > We had an unsuccessful transition call last week. See > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Apr/0057 > > The editors drafted new wording for Section 2 Conformance; see > http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/05/xml-stylesheet/ > http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/05/xml-stylesheet/diff.html > > Paul sent email to Daniel Glazman and TimBL requesting comment at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010May/0012 > Daniel commented at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Aug/0002 > > Liam talked to TimBL July 1 and sent some email at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jul/0002 > explaining what we should do next. > > At our telcon of July 28, after some discussion and a vote, > the WG agreed to add the following paragraph verbatim > as a second paragraph to the Note in section 2: > > At the time of edition 1 (1999) the meaning of these > p-attributes was not well specified, and at the time > of edition 2 (2010) there is low interoperability in > the values between implementations; future work may > clarify this. > > Henry has updated the draft at > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/09/xml-stylesheet.html > > He has meanwhile expressed serious disagreement with the > addition of this text and has removed his name as editor > of this draft. It sounds like we should revisit this > issue given that Henry missed the previous telcon. We had some more discussion and came up with a proposal to present to the WG. Proposed: Rescind instructions to the editors of our previous proposal (which was to insert verbatim the above quoted paragraph) and request a new PER call based on the draft at http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/05/xml-stylesheet/diff.html and DanielG's acceptance of that draft at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Aug/0002 ACTION to Paul: Put the previous proposal to the WG in email. > > ACTION to Liam (once the WG has a draft to forward): Do > whatever is necessary to get AssocSS out as PER (asking > Paul for a pub request if necessary). > > > 12. xml-model > > See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-schemas > > This has been published as a WG Note at > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-xml-model-20100415/ > > XML Model is being balloted by SC34 until the ? of August. > In the middle of September SC34 will have a face-to-face meeting > where they will discuss comments received during the ballot. > > Jirka will bring SC34 comments, concerns, and proposed resolutions > back to XML Core WG in the second half of September. > > > 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/2010Aug/0007
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 16:12:48 UTC