W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2012 May 30

From: Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:45:59 -0500
Message-ID: <4FC640B7.9080800@paulgrosso.name>
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org

Attendees
---------
   Glenn
   Paul
   Henry
   Liam

[4 organizations (5 with proxies) present out of 9]

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


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


Our next telcon will be June 13.  Regrets from Henry.


> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
> Request for xml:href et al.
> ---------------------------
> Someone (apparently from the National Research Council
> of Canada) sent a message to xml-editor archived at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2012AprJun/0000
> requesting that we add xml:href, xml:rel, and xml:type
> attributes.
>
> Paul wrote a response at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2012AprJun/0001
>
> The commenter replied at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2012AprJun/0002
> with more questions and suggestions.  There was a bit more WG
> discussion, but nothing to change our minds.  We are probably
> at permanent loggerheads here--not sure if there's much more
> we can do, but suggestions are welcome.
>

In short, he is asking for xlink-like attributes to be
added to the XML namespace.  In fact, he'd be even happier
with some reserved non-namespaced attributes with linking
semantics.

Apparently, his whole point is that he doesn't really
like namespaces, but since the xml namespace prefix
doesn't have to be declared explicitly, he's willing
to think of things like xml:href as being "reserved"
attribute names that just happen to start with "xml:".

The idea of namespaces pretty much originated with TimBL,
so I wonder if we should ask the TAG for a comment here.
Henry doesn't see that there is any architecture issue,
and it's not worth sending it to the TAG.

Liam had talked to him in person in Ottawa last week to
explain things, and apparently he is willing to accept
our decision.

So we will leave things at that.  Issue closed.

>
> 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.
>

ACTION to Henry continued.

>
> 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.
>


ACTION to Henry continued.


>
> 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.
>


ACTION to Henry continued.


>
> 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/
> summarizing the requirements and use cases for possible
> enhancements to XInclude addressing the issues:
>
> * @xpointer when parse="text"
> * copying attributes from the xinclude element to the root
>   included element
>
> We did get mostly positive feedback from Chris Lilley at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2012Feb/0000 
>
>
> Norm has posted something to the DocBook TC:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook/201202/msg00001.html
>
> Norm nudged the DocBook mailing list again
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook/201204/msg00000.html
> and did publish this a few weeks ago:
> http://norman.walsh.name/2012/02/20/xinclude11
>
> Jirka gave some more feedback at
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook/201204/msg00002.html
> and also included it at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Apr/0002
>
> Daniel raised a concern about there possibly not being a root
> included element at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Apr/0010
> and Jirka responded at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Apr/0011
> We will need to consider this issue when we draft the spec.
>
> An updated charter is in the process of an internal W3M
> review, and then it would need to be reviewed by the AC.
> We don't expect any pushback, but in practice it will
> probably take a couple months before we really have a
> new charter.


Liam reports that our new charter should go out for 4 week
AC review sometime within the week.


>
> Meanwhile we could work on an XInclude 1.1 draft, but
> we couldn't publish it until we have our new charter.
>
> Norm is willing to continue to be editor of XInclude 1.1.
>
> We will start working on a draft over the next couple months
> by which time we should have a new charter and be able to
> publish.


ACTION to Norm:  Send out emails on the key XInclude 1.1 issues.


>
>
> 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/2012May/0018
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 15:46:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:44 UTC