Re: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 July 14

Please accept my regrets for this telcon

Regards,

Mohamed

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

>
> We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday,
> July 14, from
>          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
>          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
>          15:00-16:00 UTC
>          16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
>          17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
> on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#.
> We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 .
>
> See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents
> and other information.  If you have additions to the agenda, please
> email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon.
>
> Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and
> completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it
> at the beginning of the call.
>
>
> Regrets from Liam, DV.
>
> 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).
>
>
> 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
>
>
> 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
>
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Mar/0045
> from Dan Connolly which references
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Mar/0037
>
> At (among other places)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010May/0001
> Larry Masinter explains the plan, to wit:
>
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-00#section-1.3
>  contains a definition in section 1.3 on "LEIRI proessing" which
>  should in fact be a definition of LEIRI:
>
>  LEIRI:  This term was used in various XML specifications to
>      refer to strings that, although not valid IRIs, were
>      acceptable input to the processing rules in Section 7.1.
>
>  where Section 7.1 of the same document is intended to contain an
>  algorithm that will convert an LEIRI to an IRI.
>
>  If that's adequate for XML Core to change its reference for LEIRI,
>  fine, and if you need more, please say so.
>
> A direct reference to Section 7.1 is
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-00#section-7.1
>
> So the question is whether the definition and discussion of
> LEIRIs in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-00
> would allow us to replace our LEIRI Note with a reference to
> this spec.
>
> John sent his mostly positive comments about this at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jul/0000
> but suggested some further changes about control characters.
>
> Mohamed replied explaining that we shouldn't make those
> additional changes because of XML 1.1, and then John agreed
> with Mohamed.  So it sounds like we can replace our note
> with this 3987bis (if it ever really happens).
>
>
> 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 also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xlink1.1
>
> The XLink 1.1 Rec was published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xlink11-20100506/
>
>
> 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
> and there has been no response.
>
> Liam talked to TimBL July 1 and sent some sketchy email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jul/0002
> explaining what we should do next.  There was some follow up
> to that email.  The WG still needs to decide what we are
> willing to do.
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> 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/2010May/0002
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €