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

XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2007 May 14

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:17:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30207613C08@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 May 23.

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
--------
Glenn's latest draft is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/05/CR-xml-c14n11-20070509 
We're expecting this to be the draft we take to CR net any
pubrules/status section issues.

ACTION to Paul:  Check the draft for pubrules.

ACTION to Glenn:  Reply to the four commentors and produce
a draft DoC.


HRRI RFC
--------
Norm's latest draft was published as an ID at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-00.txt

ACTION to Norm:  Make edits suggested by Paul and issue a -01 draft.


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.


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, 14 May 2007 20:17:49 GMT

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