Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 July 14

Attendees
---------
Glenn
Norm
Paul 
John

[4 organizations (5 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------
DV, proxy to the chair
Liam
Mohamed
Jirka
Henry


Absent organizations
--------------------
Innovimax (with regrets)
Daniel Veillard (with regrets)
W3C (with regrets)
Jirka Kosek (with regrets)
Opera


Henry gives regrets for July 28--proxy to Norm.
 
> 
> 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).
> 

Accepted.

> 
> 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
> 

Noah's latest on this is at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jul/0017

ACTION to Norm:  Reply to Noah's email on the TAG list--already done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jul/0020

> 
> 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).
> 

The WG has consensus that, should the wording in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-00#section-7.1
ever end up in an RFC, it would be sufficient to allow
us to replace our LEIRI note with a reference to that wording.

ACTION to Paul:  Reply to the TAG that the wording in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-00#section-7.1
would allow us to replace our LEIRI note with a reference to that 
wording.

> 
> 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.

ACTION to Paul:  Make a suggestion for a wording change to
AssocSS that might satisfy TimBL and send it to the XML Core list.


> 
> 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
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 15:40:46 UTC