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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2007 May 9

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 10:27:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020749153F@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
May 9, 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).

Regrets from DV May 9 and 23rd.

2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.

XML clarification
Norm sent email about < in attribute values at
Richard replied at

Henry doesn't see why Richard's explanation makes the problem go
away.  Glenn explains it, but Henry points out that more explanation
would be useful--at least in the test, and maybe in the spec.

Glenn suggested putting something in the table near the end (4.4)
if we put anything in the spec.

Henry suggests adding an example such as this case to Appendix D
(in XML 1.0 4th Ed).

ACTION to Glenn:  Suggest some wording/example to add to the spec
that covers the "< in attribute value" issue (actually, internal 
entity in attributes).

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

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

Paul asks why we are trying to define the relationship
of C14N 1.1 with XML 1.1 when C14N 1.0 doesn't have a
relationship with XML 1.1, and all we were trying to do
is fix the problem with xml:id.  The WG isn't eager to 
try to solve these other issues in C14N 1.1.

We will plan to put some sort of non-normative note into 
the CR draft of the C14N 1.1 spec about its relationship 
(or lack thereof) to XML 1.1.

ACTION to Glenn:  Propose some wording.

The LC ended April 30.  We should take it to CR in May.

ACTION to Glenn:  Check the comments list.

ACTION to Glenn:  Produce a CR draft.

4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs.

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. 

Norm's latest draft was published as an ID at

Norm states a sugggested plan as follows:

 I suggest we let two weeks tick by, make the edits Paul suggested
 and address any other comments, then produce a draft...-01. If, two
 weeks later, there are no new comments, I suggest we ask the IETF to
 publish it as an RFC.

Henry suggests we consider
Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0: Resource Identifiers
though Paul isn't sure what's to consider:

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/2007Apr/0015
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 14:28:06 UTC

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