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

XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2007 June 25

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:23:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30207DE5DAB@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


The XML Core WG telcons are every other week,
but we have cancelled the telcon of July 4.

Therefore, 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 at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0046

ACTION to Konrad:  Send email to the XML Core list with the latest 
suggested updated version of Appendix A and examples.


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.  Recent emails include:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/0038
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/0041
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/0044 - 47

The last four (0044-0047) are from Martin and to date have had
no responses.  What with emails all over each containing a 
different set of multiple comments, I'm not sure how to come
to closure, but I urge those with input to continue the email
discussion.

Martin had also sent
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2007May/0000
which most of us had never seen, so we need to review that.

ACTION to Richard:  Review Martin's message and post to
the WG list.


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, 25 June 2007 15:25:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:35 GMT