Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2012 July 11

Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name> writes:
> We had an XML Core WG phone call on Wednesday, July 11.

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Jul/0014.html
Chair: Norm
Scribe: Norm
Regrets: Paul, Mohamed, Liam
Present: Norm, Henry, Jirka, Glenn

> 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.
>
> XML Core WG Charter
> -------------------
> The amended XML Core WG charter that allows us to work on
> XInclude 1.1 was out for AC review. 
>
> ACTION to Liam:  Give an update on the XML Core WG charter update.

Continued. But see https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xmlcore2012/results
That's the questionnaire results, not the W3M decision, though.

> Fall TPAC
> ---------
> There will be a TPAC meeting in Lyon, France in October/November:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Mar/0006
>
> We have signed up to have a WG f2f there.
>
> Likely to attend:  Norm, Liam, Henry, Jirka, Mohamed
> Not likely to attend:  Glenn, Paul, John, Daniel
>
> xml-stylesheet and HTML5
> ------------------------
> Henry took an action to file a bug about xml-stylesheet
> handling.  Done:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14689
>
> Henry has done a lot more testing and filing of results to date.
> Henry's tests are at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2011/11/ssTests/
> You need to look at the README and README2 files there.
>
> The CSS2 spec says something about styling XML with CSS.
> Henry also notes http://www.w3.org/Style/styling-XML.en.html.
>
> ACTION to Henry: File a bug against the HTML5 spec saying that
> it should support styling XML with CSS.
>
> issues with the Polyglot draft
> ------------------------------
> Henry sent email with various potential issues at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Nov/0037
>
> Polyglot draft: BOM
> -------------------
> We discussed the point about the spec recommending [P1] the use of the UTF-8 BOM.
>
> [P1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/#character-encoding
>
> Henry filed an issue against Polyglot about the BOM:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012May/0000
>
> Someone pushed back saying that the BOM is more robust than
> the meta as a way of signaling UTF-8, so we shouldn't make
> meta the preferred way of doing it.  The proposed compromise
> is that neither would be listed as preferred.
>
> We're okay with that compromise.
>
> ACTION to Henry:  Accept the compromise.

Completed. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Jul/0017.html

> Polyglot draft: xml:space and xml:base
> --------------------------------------
> See the minutes at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Jan/0016
> for the discussion.
>
> Henry has drafted two issues regarding xml:space and xml:base in
> the Polyglot draft and HTML5 for WG review; see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012May/0001
>
> Norm thinks Henry's draft is fine.  Let's submit it and
> see what happens.
>
> ACTION to Henry:  Submit his comments on xml:space and xml:base.

Completed: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Jul/0020.html
and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Jul/0019.html

> Profiles
> --------
> Henry started a thread about profiles at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Jul/thread.html#msg5

Henry: That came out of a discussion that Jonathan Reese and I had about
something else entirely. I sent it to XML Core mostly for information,
there's nothing we need to take action on.

Norm: It seemed like that discussion came to agreement, so there's nothing
we need to do.

Henry: Right. The only thing we might conceivably do is add something
non-normative to the Infoset spec if we ever chose to make a new
edition.

> 3.  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/
>
> 4.  LEIRIs--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#leiri
>
> We have planned to issue the following spec editions referencing
> LEIRIs (and any outstanding errata):
>
> * XML 1.0 6th Edition (John to be editor)
> * XML 1.1 3rd Edition (John to be editor)
> * XInclude 3rd Edition (Paul to be editor)
>
> but all this is on hold awaiting resolution of IRIbis.
>
> 5.  XInclude 1.1--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude
>
> On 2012 February 14, we published
> XInclude 1.1 Requirement and Use Cases
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude-11-requirements/
>
> We have started discussions at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Jun/thread#msg6
>
> So far, we have provisional consensus as follows:
>
> * To add a fragid attribute.
>
> * Some wanted to deprecate xpointer, others didn't, though in either
>   case it's less a technical issue than "political".
>
> * If both xpointer and fragid are specified, they should be identical.
>   If not, some wanted to make this some kind of error, but not fatal
>   and not something that triggered fallback.  Others didn't feel it
>   needed to be an error, but again, that's less a technical issue than
>   "political".
>
>   If both xpointer and fragid are specified, when parse=xml, the value
>   of xpointer should be used; if parse is not xml, the value of fragid
>   should be used.
>
> *  We decided to change @parse to allow other values (besides xml and text).
>    The effects of other values are implementation dependent, and unrecogized
>    values are a "recoverable error" which causes fallback.
>
> *  In XInclude 1.0, we define "resource errors" which cause fallback.  Now
>    that we have something other than a resource error that we want to cause
>    fallback, we are going to change the terminology throughout the spec for
>    errors that cause fallback (resource error -> recoverable error).
>
> Regarding what attributes get copied and how, we appear to lean
> toward copying only namespace qualified attributes.  Regarding multiple
> rootedness, we had consensus to do all attribute copying to all top-level
> elements in the inclusion and let the application deal with multiple
> identical xml:id's.
>
> Regarding attribute conflicts, we had consensus that the xinclude value
> should win.
>
> What we're trying to do with XInclude here is just to allow enough
> information to be passed through to allow the application to do
> whatever fixup it feels it needs to do.
>
> Norm (as editor) will explain in the draft how what we are trying
> to do here with XInclude is to leave enough evidence in the post-included
> document to allow subsequent processing to be able to do whatever it wants.
>
> Henry says we could define a namespace that says copy me
> without any namespace.  But he decided not to propose that
> seriously now.
>
> ACTION to Norm (as editor):  Create a first draft XInclude 1.1.

Continued.

Brief discussion of Liam's message
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Jul/0009.html
but in Liam's absence.

We concluded that nothing needed to be done.

Henry: Someone might want to do "namespace insulated" XInclude in
order to prevent prefixes in content from being captured that weren't
captured in the original.

Norm: Or maybe something related to digital signatures. Maybe. But we
aren't going there.

> 6.  XML Model
>
> Jirka reminded us that ISO published XML Model as an international
> standard.  One can buy it at
> http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=54793
>
> He said that the process is in order to try to allow the ISO version
> to be published for free.
>
> We will wait to see if it becomes freely available and then update
> our note to reference it.
>
> Jirka reported that the ISO process for making the ISO version
> free is a bit involved.  WG1 has to recommend to SC34 that the
> spec be made public.  This should happen at a June 2012 meeting.
> Then there is a 60 day ballot in SC34, then there is a 60 day
> ballot at the JTC1 level.  If all goes well, ISO/IEC 19757-11
> could be published at the ITTF page in late 2012.
>
> So it doesn't look like we'd be updating our XML Model WG Note
> before 2013.
>
> 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/2012Jun/0014

Any other business?

None heard.

Henry gives regrets for 25 July and 8 August.
Norm gives probably regrets for 8 August.

Adjourned.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 413 624 6676
www.marklogic.com