Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 July 28

Attendees
---------
Norm
Paul 
Liam
John xx:40
Daniel

[5 organizations (6 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------
Henry, proxy to Norm
Glenn
Mohamed
Jirka

Absent organizations
--------------------
IBM (with regrets)
Innovimax (with regrets)
Univ of Edinburgh (with regrets, proxy to Norm)
Jirka Kosek (with regrets)
Opera

> 
> 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/
> 

Reminder to register for TPAC if you are attending.

> 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
> 

We've seen no progress on this since July 14.

We'll ask Henry for a TAG status on this on August 11.

> 
> 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
> 
> Paul sent email to that effect to the TAG at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jul/0027
> and
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jul/0024
> 
> This should close this issue (until 3987bis is an RFC).
> 

ACTION to Paul:  Record this resolution on our group page
and remove this topic from our ongoing agenda.

> 
> 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.
> 
> At our telcon last week, Paul took an action to suggest some
> change to our latest AssocSS draft, but at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jul/0028
> he threw in the towel suggesting that we just re-request
> that we take the latest AssocSS draft to PER.
> 

We had another discussion.

Paul's opinions are recorded at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jul/0028
He did not want to add the suggested words to the spec.

DV also did not feel we should be adding such words.

John took the stand that we should just add the words that
TimBL gave us so that we could get the spec out regardless
of whether we liked such an addition or not.

After more discussion, we realized we were not going to
reach consensus, so the chair called for a roll call vote.

RESOLVED:  That we 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.

No: Paul, DV
Yes: John, Norm, HT (proxy vote by Norm)
Concur: Liam

Therefore, the WG AGREEED (voting 4 to 2) to add said paragraph
verbatim as a second paragraph to the Note in section 2.

Paul informed the WG that, as PTC/Arbortext AC rep, he would
be filing an objection to those words in his PER review.

ACTION to the editors (Simon?):  Update the 20 April 2010
draft PER of AssocSS as follows:

1.  Add the above quoted paragraph verbatim as a second
    paragraph to the Note in section 2.

2.  Change the pub dates (in the subtitle, this version
    URL [both published and the href], and anywhere else
    as necessary) to 5 August 2010.

3.  Change the end review date in the SotD to 10 September 2010.

Then regenerate both the HTML and the diff-marked HTML.


ACTION to Paul:  Send email to TimBL and DanielG pointing
to the latest draft and requesting acceptance.


ACTION to Liam:  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/
> 

ACTION to Jirka:  Give the WG a status update on SC34's
work on XML Model.

> 
> 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/2010Jul/0025
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2010 16:16:32 UTC