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

XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2007 June 11

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:33:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30207B1EF73@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 June 20.

Status and open actions

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.

C14N 1.1
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
(or later that week) with a target pubdate of June 21.

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

Martin Duerst raise security issues with the HRRI draft at 

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.

In addition, Martin sent some more comments at
to which Richard replied at

It looks like this will drag out, since I don't see us
making progress until the next telcon when we can all
discuss this unless we have more email about this soon.

XML 1.0/1.1
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.
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 20:35:16 UTC

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