Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2011 November 30

Attendees
---------
Glenn
Norm
Paul 
Henry
Liam
Jirka (IRC only)

[6 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 9]

Regrets
-------
Daniel, proxy to the chair
Mohamed, proxy to the chair

Absent organizations
--------------------
Innovimax (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
Daniel Veillard (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
John Cowan


Our next telcon is December 14.

> 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.
> 
> Schedule of telcons
> -------------------
> We plan to have telcons on:
> Dec 14
> Jan 11
> 
> No telcon on December 28.
> 
> 
> xml-stylesheet and HTML5
> ------------------------
> Henry and Paul met with Anne van Kesteren at the TPAC f2f
> (see minutes).
> 
> Henry took an action to file a bug about xml-stylesheet
> handling.  Done:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14689
> 
> HT: I have an *xhtml* doc with an xml-stylesheet PI with
type=text/xsl.
> Does the HTML5 specs cover this case?

Yes it does, or rather, we have agreement that it will.

> 
> ACTION to Henry: Consider asking the above question of the HTML5 WG
> after doing some research to determine what does currently happen.
> 
> HT: Section 5.5.3 doesn't appear to distinguish between xhtml and
> non-xhtml xml documents.  The spec does not make it obvious what
> should happen for non-xhtml xml documents.

This will be handled.

Also, if there is no SS, a non-xhtml xml document will be displayed
using the default tree view.

> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Think about the above statement and determine
> if we need to file a bug report or ask a question about it.
> 
> There has been a fair number of emails on this in the past week.
> I'll be asking Henry for a summary status update during the call.

One edge issue is having a spec for what browsers should do when an 
XML document has a SS PI pointing to a CSS stylesheet.

Henry's tests indicate most browsers handle this pretty well, but
there is nothing in the HTML5 spec about this.  Do we want something
in there about this?

ACTION to Liam:  Send pointers to examples of support for styling
XML with CSS (either tools or web pages).

Some browsers implement stylesheet groups and UI choices among them 
(e.g., SS PIs with 'alternate' and 'title') when the stylesheet type
is CSS, but there is no browser support for this when for type=XSL.

If we wanted this spec-ed, we'd have to define how to merge XSLT
stylesheets, but it sounds like it would be an uphill battle.  

Norm, Henry, and Paul didn't think this was worth trying to do this.

Some other of HT's observations:

If you put 2 SS PIs on an XML document, Firefox uses the second and 
Chrome and IE use the first one.

Firefox ignores SS PIs that have the title and alternate attributes
specified.  (Not clear what would happen with just one of those.)

None of the browsers implement the default style response header
with respect to XSLT stylesheets; three of the four implement it
for CSS stylesheets.

Chrome doesn't appear to give a UI choice when there are multiple
SS PIs for type=CSS.

Then there is the issue of having an XML SS PI and a SS specified
by a link.  This works properly in at least some browsers.

So HT thinks the status quo is generally correct, we just need to
make sure it is spec-ed properly in the HTML5 spec.

Henry's tests are at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2011/11/ssTests/
You need to look at the README and README2 files there.

> 
> 
> Extending XInclude
> ------------------
> Henry, Paul, Liam, Murray discussed this at the f2f (see minutes).
> 
> Those present generally liked the idea of extending xinclude to copy
> attributes on the xinclude element down to the root included element,
> but we didn't agree on details.
> 
> Some issues include:
> 
> 1.  exactly what attributes to copy?  Henry and Liam preferred to
> copy un-prefixed attributes (except those in the xinclude spec) too.
> 
> Norm worries what this would mean if we add another attribute
> in the XInclude spec?
> 
> Henry wants to be able to have unprefixed attributes copied
> onto the root included element.
> 
> Henry: we could add a new "copy me without prefix" namespace
> to xinclude.
> 
> Norm doesn't need that, but could live with it.
> 
> 2.  what to do about attribute conflict (error or one or the other
> wins).
> 
> 3.  whether we should "log" additions (e.g., via an attribute that
> says what attributes were added).
> 
> At first, we didn't think this was much of a concern, but then we
> realized perhaps it was something worth considering.
> 
> 4.  whether we should have some way for targets to say whether they
> can be xincluded and/or, when included, have attributes added.
> 
> We had a discussion about xinclude being like img/@src rather than
> a/@href in that xincluding things is basically "stealing" them.
> 
> Yes, it's worth thinking about this a bit, but it seems like
> this issue exists already elsewhere, and it may not make sense
> to worry about this in XInclude.
> 
> We aren't quite ready to start drafting Xinclude 1.1,
> but discussion will continue.
> 
> Liam tells us that it's okay to work on requirements for an
> XInclude 1.1, but before publishing a FPWD, we'll need a charter
> revision.  He doesn't anticipate any problems, provided there's
> a realistic schedule for getting to Rec.
> 
> 
> 3.  XML 1.0--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-errata
> 
> We are creating an XML 1.0 6th Edition and XML 1.1 3rd (or
> perhaps 6th) Edition.
> 
> ACTION to John:  Update the XML sources for XML 1.0 and 1.1
> to reflect any errata and the LEIRI reference.
> 
> On hold awaiting resolution of IRIbis.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> We had planned to issue the following spec editions referencing
LEIRIs:
> 
> * XML 1.0 6th Edition
> * XML 1.1 3rd Edition
> * XInclude 3rd Edition
> 
> We continue to wait to see what might happen with IRIbis.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 10.  XInclude 3rd Ed--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude
> 
> We are creating an XInclude 3rd Edition.
> 
> ACTION to Paul:  Update the XML sources for Xinclude to reflect
> any errata and the LEIRI reference.
> 
> On hold awaiting resolution of IRIbis.
> 
> XInclude @xpointer when parse="text"
> ------------------------------------
> Henry, Paul, Liam, Murray discussed this at the f2f (see minutes).
> 
> Previous email discussion at
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Oct/thread.ht
ml#msg46
> 
> We seem to have three choices:
> 
> 1.  allow use of the @xpointer attribute when parse=text
> 2.  add a new "@textptr" attribute to use when parse=text
> 3.  add a new "@fragid" attribute to use in all cases and possibly
>     deprecate the @xpointer attribute
> 
> The assembled group was generally positive about working on a solution
> of some sort.  It felt like the "right" solution if we could time-
> travel
> backwards would be #3, the easiest spec change was to #2, though some
> of us felt that #1 was the best choice at the present.
> 
> Paul restarted [or tried to] the email discussion at
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Nov/thread.ht
ml#msg12
> 
> 
> 11.  Associating Stylesheets.
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-ss
> 
> AssocSS 2nd Ed is now a Recommendation at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xml-stylesheet-20101028/
> 
> 
> 12.  xml-model
> 
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-schemas
> 
> The Second Edition has been published as a WG Note at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/NOTE-xml-model-20110811/
> 
> 
> 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/2011Nov/0011
>

Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 17:05:25 UTC