Re: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2002 May 22

I just generated a new distribution that includes the change  to  the TS 
name in xmlconf.xml and the report.


http://xw2k.sdct.itl.nist.gov/martinez/xmlts/2001/XML-Test-Suite/xmlconf/newcover.html

Cordially,

Sandra



At 09:16 AM 5/22/2002 -0700, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>Attendees
>---------
>Mark
>Arnaud
>Glenn
>Jonathan
>Sandra
>Anguel
>JohnC
>Norm
>Daniel
>Francois
>JohnE
>Tim
>Mary
>Liam
>Lew xx:45
>
>[12 orgs (14 with proxies) present out of 14]
>
>Regrets
>-------
>Paul - proxy to the chair
>Richard - proxy to JohnC
>
>Absent organizations
>--------------------
>Arbortext (with regrets)
>University of Edinburgh (with regrets)
>
>>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.  I18N has taking the CharMod spec to Last Call [31].
>>      The following people have committed to reviewing it by May 31st:
>>      JohnE, Norm, Lew.
>
>
>Norm sent out some comments. JohnC says the pb Norm mentions with comments 
>being stripped leading to unnormalized document cannot actually occur 
>because it is forbidden by the rules of full normalization. Basically text 
>chunks can't begin with a problematic character.
>
>Others have another week to review the spec.
>
>
>>3.  XML 1.0 test suite issues [10].
>>We have all issues closed and we expect to publish by May 31st.
>>Sandra developed a cover page and a new distribution [9].
>>Where should we put the actual download?  Liam will decide.
>>If we could have someone OK the latest zip and the cover page,
>>Liam could put it all up in a public location and announce it.
>
>
>We discussed how to identify the test suite and ended up with the following:
>
>XML 1.0 Second Edition, W3C Conformance Test Suite <date>
>
>ACTION to Sandra to change the name and make a new distribution for Liam 
>to publish.
>
>Glenn checked non validating processors. Daniel checked the validating 
>part. Everything seems to be fine.
>
>Mary will see what can be done with the version of the test suite that is 
>available from sourceforge so that they either get in sync or send people 
>to us.
>
>ACTION to Liam: see with the system team where to put it on the W3C 
>website and publish it.
>
>
>>4.  XML 1.0 errata.  The published errata document is [5], and
>>      the Potential Errata (PE) document is [4].
>>We have agreed to make an erratum to XML 1.0 to change the grammar so 
>>that XML 1.0 documents cannot invoke XML 1.1 entities.
>>ACTION to Richard: to propose a change of the grammar and change to the
>>related statement.
>
>Done. Richard sent out a proposal with several options [39].
>
>Some think that the change to the grammar is not general enough, and will 
>need to be changed again for 1.1. Adding some text would allow to solve 
>the pb once for all. However, it is unclear that the same restriction 
>would apply to a new version, because it could be that the new version is 
>compatible with 1.1.
>
>"later than" is seen as not specific enough. JohnC suggested changing it 
>to something like "lexico-graphically greater than" (sp?).
>
>We had an inconclusive strawpoll with 6 persons in favor of changing the 
>grammar, 6 in favor of changing the wording, and 1 person concurring! So, 
>we need to discuss this more.
>
>Jonathan pointed out that changing the grammar may be seen as a bigger 
>change, even though both solutions really result in the same change.
>
>ACTION to JohnC to send a new proposal for the wording.
>
>Glenn points out that there is a paragraph talking about version numbers 
>that Richard's proposal doesn't address. Section 2.8 After hello world example.
>
>ACTION to Glenn: to send a proposal on how to change it.
>
>
>We did not have time to go any further in the agenda, we'll spend more 
>time on the following items next week.
>
>
>>5.  Namespaces [16] proposed errata [17].
>>Need to publish another 1.1 WD with the errata incorporated.
>>Document is ready, just waiting for XML 1.1 to be released.
>>6.  XML 1.1 (Blueberry) [6].  Issues list/DoC at [12].
>>The Last Call is published at [6], announced at [29] and [30].
>>ACTION to JohnC: Liaise with I18N to find out what they think of
>>the useless internal entity question.
>>(E.g.: Does normalization matter in an entity that is never referenced?)
>>We have an issue regarding a special element to encode disallowed
>>characters [39]. Note, such an element would not show up in the
>>Infoset as a character, but as an element.
>>We are waiting for JohnC to report on the response he got from his email 
>>to xml-dev and xml-plenary requesting feedback on this issue.
>>
>>7.  XInclude [7] CR period ended April 30th.  The public comment list
>>[8] has several comments that are captured in an issues/DoC document [11].
>>The following actions were given last week:
>>2.2 XInclude Schema improvements
>>Suggestion accepted conditional to verification.
>>ACTION to Jonathan and Richard to check on the validity of the proposed
>>Schema.
>>2.3 Whitespace normalization of the parse attribute
>>ACTION to Jonathan to add a note stating that no whitespace should be
>>put in the value or the result will depend on whether the processor uses
>>the grammar or not.
>>2.5 What does "ignored" mean?
>>ACTION to Jonathan to try to clarify the spec.
>>2.6 DTD and Schema inconsistent and 2.7 Lose DTD
>>We would rather keep the DTD.
>>ACTION to Norm to see if he can make the DTD and XML Schema more consistent.
>>ACTION to Jonathan to add a note explaining the two languages don't have
>>the same power of expression and therefore can't be made the same.
>>
>>Paul sent a message to Uche [38] inviting him to send an implementation
>>report to the XInclude comments list, but there has been nothing new
>>on that list (nothing in May--maybe the moderator is not forwarding?).
>>XInclude Test Suite issues?
>>Namespace fixup
>>---------------
>>One possible solution relates to Namespace 1.1 undeclaring of prefixes.
>>Richard: We should do namespace fixup only as part of serialization.
>>Daniel agrees.
>>ACTION to Daniel:  Send a message on this to the XInclude comments list.
>>ACTION to Jonathan:  Send email to the list before next week's telcon to
>>help drive the discussion.
>>We will keep going through the issues list. Jonathan will drive this 
>>discussion.
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core
>>[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#tasks
>>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-core-wg/2002AprJun/0122
>>[4] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2000/10/proposed-xml10-2e-errata
>>[5] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata
>>[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/
>>[7] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xinclude-20020221/
>>[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/
>>[9] 
>>http://xw2k.sdct.itl.nist.gov/martinez/xmlts/2001/XML-Test-Suite/xmlconf/newcover.html
>>[10] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/02/xml10-test-suite-issues
>>[11] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/05/xinclude-cr-comments
>>[12] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/01/blueberry-comments
>>[14] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11-req/
>>[15] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/
>>[16] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/
>>[17] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata
>>[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2002AprJun/0050
>>[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-plenary/2002Apr/0003
>>[31] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430
>>[38]
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-core-wg/2002AprJun/att-0111/01-uche.mail 
>>
>
>[39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-core-wg/2002AprJun/0136.html
>
>
>--
>Arnaud  Le Hors - IBM, XML Standards Strategy Group / W3C AC Rep.
>

Sandra I. Martinez
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899

(301) 975-3579
sandra.martinez@nist.gov

Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 14:48:55 UTC