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

XML Core WG Status and Open Action as of 2007 March 5

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:01:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302068F4DE5@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 March 14.

Status and open actions
=======================
 
We have been asked to review XForms 1.1 which is going to 
Last Call soon.

The current working draft dated 12 Feb 2007 appears at 
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group/Drafts/1.1/fullspec/index-all.html 

A diff-marked version showing the changes for 1.1 relative to 
XForms 1.0 Second Edition appears here: 
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group/Drafts/1.1/fullspec/index-diff.html

JohnC emailed his draft review at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0020

Any comments?
 
---

The XML CG has asked that XML Core review:
Widgets 1.0 Requirements
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-reqs-20070209/
and
Widgets 1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/

Any volunteers?


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/

What is the relationship between C14N 1.1 and XML 1.1?

We see no reason that C14N 1.1 couldn't be used with XML 1.1.
Philippe would like us to make this clear in the C14N 1.1 spec.

Namespaces 1.1 does allow the undeclaring of a namespace prefix
which might cause problems for C14N.  But then we decided there
might already be problems with C14N and NS 1.0 (not preserving
prefixes in some cases--what JohnC calls qname-correctness).

JohnC suggests:  If a namespace is declared in the input, then 
it must be declared in the output.

John points out that it's not clear how you generate an xpath 1.0 
model for an XML 1.1 document.

ACTION to JohnC:  Send email to the list summarizing the issue
and your suggested solution.

The XPath 1.0 data model (which C14N uses) allows for undeclaring
namespaces, but this can only be serialized using NS 1.1.  But
Konrad says C14N inherits the namespaces-in-scope from its ancestors.

We may need to change wording in C14N 1.1 about how namespaces are 
canonicalized. 

ACTION to Konrad, Richard:  Post thoughts on this to the email list.

Richard did post something at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Feb/0032


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

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

Norm suggests we provide a more crisp defn of XML Resource 
Identifier and say processors "should" check it but don't
have to.

ACTION to Norm:  Draft a better definition of XML Resource
Identifier.

ACTION to Henry:  Give us on update on the status of XML Base.


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

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.

ACTION to Francois:  Update the PE document with this PE
and suggested resolution.


XInclude
--------
We got a comment about the XInclude spec at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0013

Paul suggested some specific wording to clarify the xi:fallback at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0023

Henry suggested wording to clarify xml:lang fixup at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0022

We had CONSENSUS to make these editorial errata.

ACTION to Daniel:  Process these as (editorial) errata to the
latest XInclude spec.
Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 15:04:22 GMT

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