W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > December 2006

XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2006 December 26

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:17:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30205C5A523@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

The XML Core WG telcons are every other week. 

Our next telcon will be January 3.

Status and open actions

XBL2 Review
Editor's copy (more up to date)

Snapshot for TR page (last call version; outdated)

fwiw, here are a few reviews/notes one might want to
read for some other XML Activity members' thoughts:


ACTION to Norm:  Review this WD.

attribute canonicalization
Issue on attribute canonicalization raised by Norm at
and by Eric Prud'hommeaux at

We figure if this is RDF's way to quote attributes, 
it's fine with us, as it's RDF-specific.

ACTION to Norm:  Reply to Eric with this and see if we've
misunderstood something.

The C14N 1.1 Last Call working draft is published at

Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0) WG Note 
has been published at

Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML Environment 
WG Note has been published at

XML Base
The (Second Edition) PER has been published at

The XLink CR was published at

The latest almost PR-ready XLink draft is at

Norm posted a DoC at

ACTION to Norm:  Follow up in email on:
XLink conformance criteria question, Boris Zbarsky 

ACTION to Norm:  Post to the WG mailing list something to
show that any valid XLink 1.1 document can be programmatically 
converted into an equivalent XLink 1.0 document.

ACTION to Norm:  Provide a few more tests for the test suite.

Paul wrote a SECOND draft PR request at

ACTION to Norm:  Complete resolution of DoC.

ACTION to WG (need volunteer):  Update the Implementation Report.

ACTION to Norm:  Produce PR-ready draft.

ACTION to Norm:  Produce diff/review version.

XML 1.0/1.1
ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document per recent telcon

> On PE 157, John sent email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0036
> with his suggested response and a question for the WG:
> > Should we add specific references to UTF-16BE, UTF-16LE, CESU-8,
> > etc. etc. to 4.3.3?  If so, we might as well remove "We consider the
> > first case first" from Appendix F; it's more than obvious.

We agreed that, according to the spec, such a character is not a BOM.

We have decided that John's email should be sent to the commentor
as a response (done, see [1]), and that the only change resulting from 
this PE are some editorial changes as outlined in John's email at

ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document with John's editorial
changes as the proposed resolution to PE 157.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2006OctDec/0010
Received on Tuesday, 26 December 2006 17:18:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:37 UTC