W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > April 2009

XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2009 April 27

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:08:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020F624563@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 6.

Status and open actions

Unicode normalization in XML 1.0
Addison Phillips of I18N sent email about 
Unicode Normalization in XML 1.0 5th Ed.; see

We decided to add a note; Paul sent draft wording for an erratum at
which is in countdown until our next telcon and informed I18N at
and Martin made a reply at

HTML request for clearer XML serialization
Henry raised the issue that HTML folks think the XML
spec is broken because it doesn't define error recovery
and doesn't discuss serialization.

ACTION to Henry:  Send email to the XML Core WG list
outlining the suggestion to define a serialization spec
including the rationale.

Overlap between Powder and LEIRIs
John reviewed especially section 2.1.3 of the POWDER spec at
and only had an issue with spaces and + signs.

Paul sent in our comment at
and received a reply at

Pointer Methods in RDF
The ERT WG has issued a FPWD entitled "Pointer Methods in RDF":

Paul sent in the XML Core WG comment at

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 request to use "xml-model" as a PI target
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 has requested at
that they be allowed to use "xml-model" as a processing instruction
target name token.

We might want to consider adding entries for xml-stylesheet and
to the xml namespace document at http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace.

Paul sent a draft response (to the XML Core list) at

XML Test Suite
See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-test-suite

Henry/Richard discussed the test suite issues raised by Frans Englich:

ACTION: Richard to construct a test case for these issues.

Namespaces in XML 1.0/1.1
See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#ns1.0 and

The NS PE doc is at

We closed NPE20 and NPE22 with no action needed; Paul informed I18N:

We had CONSENSUS not to add ns prefix undeclaration to NS 1.0 3rd Ed.
Paul informed XML Security at
and Frederick replied (with no concerns) at

ACTION to Henry:  Close NPE20 and NPE22 with no action/changes.

ACTION to Henry:  Publish NPE29 as an erratum and move forward
toward producing NS 1.0 3rd Edition.

The xml:id Recommendation is at

The Errata document is at

John Cowan submitted a proposed erratum at

At one point we thought we had Consensus:  
The sentence "A document that uses xml:id attributes
that have a declared type other than xs:ID will always generate 
xml:id errors" in Appendix D.3 should be deleted.

But they we reconsidered.  Henry sent further email at

Richard, Norm, DV, John, HT had a vigorous discussion during
our telcon of April 22 that we did not complete.  We will need 
to continue this in email.

We did agree that applying xml:id processing does not have
any impact on the DTD/XSD validity of the document.

Richard pointed out the following note in XML Base
(just before section 3.1):

 This specification does not give the xml:base attribute
 any special status as far as XML validity is concerned.
 In a valid document the attribute must be declared in
 the DTD, and similar considerations apply to other schema

and suggested a similar note should go into xml:id in D.1.


There was also some email about some typos for which we (Henry)
should process an editorial erratum:

ACTION to Henry:  Process an xml:id erratum to correct the typos; ref

XLink 1.1
See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xlink1.1

The XLink 1.1 Last Call has been published at

The LC review period ended 16 May 2008.

Norm has prepared an updated DoC at 

Paul summarized the open issues at

There's an open question about whether the XSD/DTD 
should default the xlink:type attribute value. 
None of this effects our last call because the
XSD/DTD are not normative.

ACTION to Henry, John:  Produce a basic level
conformance XSD and RelaxNG schema for XLink.

We plan to skip CR and going directly to PR.

Paul drafted a PR transition request at

The Implementation Report at
is pitiful.  We'll need to augment this to be able to request PR.

XInclude 3rd Edition PER
See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude

XInclude 2nd Edition is at:

ACTION to Daniel: Produce a PER-ready draft of XInclude 3rd Ed
with appropriate references to the IRI RFC for LEIRIs.

Associating Stylesheets
See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#assoc-ss

Associating stylesheets with XML version 1.0 is at:

The Errata document is at:

Simon has requested we consider revisions; see his email at
and his suggested draft at

See also Simon's email at
outlining various issues.

Paul sent email giving Arbortext's behavior and other comments at

Henry sent email giving Saxon behavior in various erroneous cases at

Paul sent email with suggested resolutions at
and there has been some follow-up email.
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 16:21:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:40 UTC