W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > January 2007

XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2007 January 8

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:57:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30205DEB6EA@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 17.

Status and open actions
=======================

XBL2 Review
-----------
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/xbl2/Overview.html?content-type
=text/html
Editor's copy (more up to date)

http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060907/
Snapshot for TR page (last call version; outdated)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:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0002
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Sep/0012

ACTION to Norm:  Review this WD.


attribute canonicalization
--------------------------
Issue on attribute canonicalization raised by Norm at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0020
and by Eric Prud'hommeaux at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0019

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.


C14N
----
The C14N 1.1 Last Call working draft is published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20061220

Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0) WG Note 
has been published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-C14N-issues-20061220/

Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML Environment 
WG Note has been published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-DSig-usage-20061220/


XML Base
--------
The (Second Edition) PER has been published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xmlbase-20061220/ 


XLink
-----
The XLink CR was published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ 

The latest almost PR-ready XLink draft is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/

Norm posted a DoC at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/xlink11-doc.html

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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0059

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 previous 
telcons' decisions.

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 [11]), and that the only change resulting from 
this PE are some editorial changes as outlined in John's email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0056

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

[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2006OctDec/0010

----

John sent email about a new PE related to UTF-8 BOM at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0067
proposing the following language as a new paragraph in 4.3.3
for both XML 1.0 and XML 1.1:

	If the replacement text of an external entity is to
	begin with the character U+FEFF, and no text declaration
	is present, then a Byte Order Mark MUST be present,
	whether the entity is encoded in UTF-8 or UTF-16.
Received on Monday, 8 January 2007 18:57:48 UTC

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