- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:54:39 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday,
June 30, 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.
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
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
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
ACTION to Henry, Mohamed: Review the definition and discussion
of LEIRIs in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-00
and let the WG know if this would allow us to replace our LEIRI
Note with a reference to this spec.
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.
ACTION to Liam (as staff contact): Push this latest draft at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/05/xml-stylesheet/
to PER per the transition request at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Apr/0034
with appropriately adjusted dates (which the editors and staff
contacts should determine).
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 Monday, 28 June 2010 16:18:27 UTC