- 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