Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 December 1

Attendees
---------
 Glenn 
 Paul 
 Henry  xx:43
 Liam
 John
 Jirka

[6 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 9]

Regrets
-------
Norm
Daniel

Absent organizations
--------------------
Marklogics (with regrets)
Innovimax 
Daniel Veillard (with regrets)


Our next telcon will be Dec 15.  


> 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.

Simon/Opera has resigned from the WG.

Our thanks to Simon (and Opera) for his help in working on the
AssocSS 2nd Edition development.


> 
> TAG concern wrt 3023bis, +xml media types and fragids
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 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.
> 
> As of 2010 November 22, the denouement from the TAG
> appears to be represented by email to the 3023bis editors at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Nov/0078
> along with a response from the 3023bis editors at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Nov/0095
> wherein they appear likely to maintain the rule but allow
> RDF to be grandfathered as an exception.
> 

Norm wasn't on the phone, but we assume all WG members are
happy enough with this resolution, so we will consider this
item closed.

> 
> Charter renewal
> ---------------
> We need to consider what we want for our charter for 2011
> and 2012.  Liam has drafted one at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/10/xml-core-charter.html

No comments.

> 
> Mohamed has suggested that XML Performance could become in the
> scope of XML Core.  He also sent email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Nov/0012
> talking about other things, but I'm not sure how to characterize
> what it would be we might do.

John didn't think an XML 2.0 would ever fly.  (Neither does Paul.)

Liam says that, if an XML 2.0 was ever really going to happen, it
would start with a workshop and probably be a new WG.

Regarding performance, Liam said it probably wouldn't fall under 
this group.  Parts of XML performance fall under EXI, maybe others
under XQuery/XSLT.

We'll revisit this discussion next telcon if Mohamed can be there.

> 
> 
> XPointer registry and the xpath() scheme
> ----------------------------------------
> Norm sent email requesting re-instatement of the xpath() scheme at
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xpointer-registry/2010OctDec/
0002

We will review this next telcon.

The email list to track discussions about this registry is
public-xpointer-registry@w3.org archived at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xpointer-registry/


> 
> XML Processor Profiles review
> -----------------------------
> We have been asked to review the XML Processing Model WG's
> Last Call Working Draft of "XML processor profiles" when
> it is published at http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-proc-profiles/.
> As of today, there is a 21 October 2010 draft there.

The 30 November 2010 version is there now.

ACTION to John, Glenn:  Review the Last Call Working Draft 
of "XML processor profiles" at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xml-proc-profiles-20101130/


> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> AssocSS 2nd Ed is now a Recommendation at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xml-stylesheet-20101028/
> 
> ACTION to Henry: Update the Errata document at
> http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/errata

ACTION to Henry continued.

> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> At
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Sep/0030
> Jirka indicated the ISO version of XML model is going to DIS.
> It should be out for vote as a DIS until the end of the year.
> 
> We will plan to update our WG Note to reference the ISO spec
> once it is officially available. We will also update our Note
> to reference the Rec version of AssocSS 2nd Ed when available.
> 
> 
> 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/2010Nov/0006
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 17:01:08 UTC