Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 September 8

Attendees
---------
Glenn
Paul 
Liam
John 
Daniel

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

Regrets
-------
Jirka
Norm, proxy to Paul
Henry

Absent organizations
--------------------
Innovimax
Mark Logic (with regrets, proxy to Paul)
Opera
Univ of Edinburgh (with regrets)
Jirka Kosek (with regrets)

Liam regrets for Sept 22.

> 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
> -----------------------------
> It now looks like there will be no official XML Core WG
> meeting in Lyons.  Those on the WG who are there are free
> to meet informally, of course.  If you are planning to
> attend, be sure to register.
> 
> 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
> 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
> 
> Per Noah's email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Aug/0003
> there will be no new status until September.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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 http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xlink1.1
> 
> Mohamed asked if xlink should point to xlink11; see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Aug/0003
> 
> We asked Ian about our options, and he pointed us to
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/
> as an example of the kind of thing we could add to XLink 1.0.
> Several WG members expressed support for doing something like
> that.  We should make a decision during this telcon.
> 

The WG had consensus to ask Ian to edit XLink 1.0 in place
in a fashion similar to that done for the referenced OWL spec.

ACTION to Paul:  Ask Ian to edit XLink 1.0 in place to 
reference XLink 1.1.

> 
> 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
> 
> DanielG expressed acceptance of that draft at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Aug/0002
> 
> The WG decided in an email vote at
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Aug/thread#ms
g30
> to request transition to PER.
> 
> Henry has updated the draft at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/08/xml-stylesheet/
> 
> Paul sent in a new transition request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Sep/0011
> 
> ACTION to Liam:  Do whatever is necessary to get AssocSS out as PER.

The AssocSS spec has been approved to go out for review as a PER
with the expected publication date being tomorrow.

> 
> 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/
> 
> At
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Aug/0046
> Jirka indicated the completion of a successful SC34 ballot of
> XML Model.  The ISO process continues, but looks promising.
> 
> We will plan to update our WG Note to reference the ISO spec
> once it is officially available.
> 
> 
> 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/2010Aug/0007
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 15:55:53 UTC