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

XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2009 July 20

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:06:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3021042553D@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 July 29.


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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0019

We have agreed on a note to add.

ACTION to Francois:  Process the suggested additional note
as an erratum to XML 1.0 5th Edition.


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.

Simon added his understanding of the issue at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jun/0007
(second half of the message) and a thread starting with a
reply from John ensued at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jun/thread.ht
ml#msg8

Perhaps with this email beginning, Henry only needs to reply
to that thread, but for now, I'll leave the following action:

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


Namespaces in XML 1.0/1.1
-------------------------
See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#ns1.0 and
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#ns1.1.

The NS PE doc is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata.html

We closed NPE20 and NPE22 with no action needed; Paul informed I18N:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0055

We had CONSENSUS not to add ns prefix undeclaration to NS 1.0 3rd Ed.
Paul informed XML Security at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0054
and Frederick replied (with no concerns) at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0058

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.

Henry is making some progress--see
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/04/xml-names-2e/xml-names-10-3e.html
but actions continue.


xml:id
------
The xml:id Recommendation is at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-xml-id-20050909/

The Errata document is at
http://www.w3.org/2005/09/xml-id-errata

John Cowan submitted a proposed erratum at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jan/0009

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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0048

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

John re-summarized his thoughts at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0008

ACTION to Henry (and others):  Continue the xml:id issue
discussion in email.

---

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
 languages.

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:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0050

ACTION to Henry:  Process an xml:id erratum to correct the typos; ref
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0050


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

The XLink 1.1 Last Call has been published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xlink11-20080331/

The LC review period ended 16 May 2008.

Norm has prepared an updated DoC at 
http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/05/xlinklc/

Paul summarized the open issues at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0045

Norm replied at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0009

ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC accordingly.

The latest editor's draft (of the PR) is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/
and a diff-with-the-last-CR draft is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/Overview-diff.html

We are still fiddling to get the correct DTDs/XSDs/RNCs in.
John sent email about this at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jul/0039.html

ACTION to Norm:  Update the draft with the correct RNC.

ACTION to Henry:  Update the DTDs (both for full
and simple conformance) so that the xlink:type attribute has no
default (e.g., is #IMPLIED).  [WAS THIS DONE?]

Henry finds the DTD/RelaxNG/XSD fragments throughout the spec unhelpful 
and would like to remove them (leaving them only in the appendices).
Henry specifically referenced the example immediately preceding 5.3.
But this was in the CR, so we will probably leave it, but we will
remove the default for xlink:type.

Henry sent an XML Schema for simple-conformant XLink at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0019

ACTION to Norm, John:  Review Henry's candidate basic level 
conformance XSD.  [WAS THIS DONE?]

John sent RelaxNG schemas at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0022

Mohamed reviewed the RNG schema and thought it was fine.

ACTION to Norm:  Review John's RelaxNG schemas.  [WAS THIS DONE?]

We plan to skip CR and going directly to PR.

Paul drafted a PR transition request at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Mar/0013

The Implementation Report at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/01/xlink11-implementation
is pitiful.  We'll need to augment this to be able to request PR.

ACTION to Norm: Dig up more for the XLink 1.1 implementation report.


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

XInclude 2nd Edition is at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xinclude-20061115

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:
http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/

The Errata document is at:
http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/errata

The latest issues document with proposed resolutions in count down is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm

ACTION to WG:  Review the proposed resolutions in count down at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm
especially those questions shaded pink.

We discussed that we should add a conformance statement
to the spec.  We tried a few suggested wordings including:

 An application (as defined in [XML]) conforms to this spec
 if is processing all XML processing instructions whose
 [PITarget] is 'xml-stylesheet' as specified by this spec.
 
but didn't get complete closure.  

ACTION to Henry:  Suggest some conformance wording in email.

ACTION to Henry: Check to ensure it is acceptable to create
a draft PER but no errata.

Henry and Simon will be co-editors of the AssocSS 2nd Edition.
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 15:11:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 July 2009 15:11:51 GMT