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

XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2007 July 9

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:16:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30208067E14@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 July 18.


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

XML clarification
-----------------
Norm sent email about < in attribute values at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0006

Glenn's proposed wording is at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0024
and slightly modified by
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0030

ACTION to Francois:  Add this to the PE document for countdown.


C14N 1.1
--------
The C14N 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xml-c14n11-20070621

Konrad had pointed out some issues with Appendix A.  He sent email
with the latest suggested updated version of Appendix A and examples:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/0050


HRRI RFC
--------
The latest HRRI draft was published as an ID on May 14 at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-01.txt

We are going through Martin's comments.  There has been some 
more email during the last week.  See especially the June archive 
for several threads and various emails on the subject:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/

I'm not sure what progress we will be able to make during July.


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.

ACTION to Francois:  Add a new PE per John's comments above
and make some suggested resolution wording.
Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 15:17:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:38 UTC