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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 June 6

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:16:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020799FCDC@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "public-xml-core-wg" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
June 6, from
          08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka
          11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka
          15:00-16:00 UTC
          16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
          17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
          20:30-21:30 in most of India
on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#.
We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 .

See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents
and other information.  If you have additions to the agenda, please
email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon.

Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and
completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it
at the beginning of the call.

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).

Paul sends regrets for June 6--Norm will chair.

2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.

XML clarification
Norm sent email about < in attribute values at

Glenn's proposed wording is at
and slightly modified by

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

3.  C14N 

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

The CR-ready C14N 1.1 draft is at

Paul sent out a draft CR request at

We had WG consensus to go to CR.

ACTION to Henry:  Organize a CR telcon for the 11th or 12th
with a target pubdate of June 14.

ACTION to Paul:  Send in CR request.

4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs -> HRRIs

The (Second Edition) PER has been published at

It's now waiting for us to say what should happen next--whether 
we want a Director's call now or not.

We need to remember to correct the IP part of the Status section per

Mike Kay thinks the defn of XML Resource Identifier is too vague. 

We decided to write an RFC to define XML Resource Identifier.
The plan is to get this to an RFC and then reference it from
XML Base (which we can then take to REC) and others. 

4.5.  HRRI RFC

The latest HRRI draft was published as an ID on May 14 at

Martin Duerst raise security issues with the HRRI draft.  

ACTION to Norm:  Get Martin to send his comments to an accessible 
list (or get his permission to forward them to such).

ACTION to Norm:  Copy/reference/incorporate the security 
text from the IRI RFC and add text mentioning the security risk
inherent in allowing the use of control characters in HRRIs.

ACTION to Norm:  Get Martin's acceptance of our changes.

ACTION to Norm:  Publish another ID once we have
agreement from Martin on the security wording.

5.  XLink update.

The XLink CR was published at

The latest almost PR-ready XLink draft is at

Norm posted a DoC at

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.

HOWEVER, the actions here are pending until we get the HRRI
RFC since we plan to reference it from XLink.

6. XML 1.0/1.1 4th/2nd Editions published 2006 August 16:

 Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Edition)

 Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)

ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document per previous 
telcons' decisions.

On PE 157, John sent email at
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

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
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.

7. Namespaces in XML 1.0/1.1 2nd Editions published 2006 August 16:

 Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Second Edition)

 Namespaces in XML 1.1 (Second Edition)

Richard has recorded Anne's issue/proposed resolution at

8.  XInclude 1.0 Second Edition has been published:

We got a comment about the XInclude spec at

Paul suggested some specific wording to clarify the xi:fallback at

Henry suggested wording to clarify xml:lang fixup at

ACTION to Daniel:  Process these as (editorial) errata to the
latest XInclude spec.

[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/2007May/00??
Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 14:16:48 UTC

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