Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2012 June 27

Attendees
---------
Glenn
Paul
Norm
Henry
Liam xx:11
Jirka

[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 will be July 11.


> 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 is currently out for AC review.  Please get
> your AC rep to complete the review.  The call for review is at
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2012AprJun/0059
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.  If we do this,
> we still need to decide what to do about multiple rooted inclusions
> and what to do when both the xinclude and the root included element
> have the same attribute specified.  Regarding multiple rootedness,
> our options include:
> 1.  give up on any attribute copying unless the inclusion
>       is single-rooted.
>
> 2.  do all attribute copying to all top-level elements in
>       the inclusion and let the application deal with multiple
>       identical xml:id's.
>
> 3.  do all attribute copying to all top-level elements in the
>       inclusion except if there is more than one top-level element:
>     a.  don't copy xml:id to any of them
>     b.  only copy xml:id to the first in document order.
> Regarding attribute conflicts, Jirka and Liam seemed to think
> the xinclude value should win, and John--after a pause--appeared
> to agree.
>
> ACTION to others, esp. Norm, Henry, Daniel:  Think about the
> XInclude 1.1 issues discussed above and comment.

We had consensus to prefer #2 above wrt copying attributes.

Regarding attribute conflicts, Norm agreed with Jirka and Liam
above.  Henry wasn't exactly sure, but concurred when Norm
explained that fixup is for the application, and 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.

We have consensus with the above decisions.

ACTION to Norm (as editor):  Create a first draft XInclude 1.1.

>
>
> 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
>
>