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

Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 June 2

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:47:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30201177B0F@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
June 2, 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 
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.

Paul send regrets--Norm will chair.

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).

2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.

The next Technical Plenary (and AC meeting) week (TPAC week) 
will be Nov 2-6 in Santa Clara, California:

The XML Core WG is tentatively planning to meet f2f 
during that week.


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 at

I18N came back with some modifications at

JohnC was okay with the I18N proposal.

Paul made a reply at

I'd really like to hear from others on this, especially Richard/Henry
and Glenn (as well as others).


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.

3.  XML 1.0

See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-errata

The XML 1.0 5th Edition Recommendation is at

Henry forwarded some email from Makoto about the 5th Ed at

4.  XML Test Suite.

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

ACTION to Richard:  Construct a test case for the XML test suite 
issues raised by Frans Englich:

5.  Namespaces in XML 1.0/1.1

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

The NS 1.0 2nd Ed Errata document is at

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.

6.  LEIRIs

See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#leiri

The WG Note defining LEIRIs is at

The following specs need to be revised to reference LEIRIs:
XML 1.0 6th Edition
XML 1.1 3rd Edition 
XML Base 2nd Edition
XLink 1.1 (First Edition)
XInclude 3rd Edition 

7.  xml:id

The xml:id Recommendation 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

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

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

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

8.  XML Base 2nd Edition 2nd Rec

See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-base

The XML Base 2nd Edition Recommendation is at

9.  XLink 1.1.

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

The earlier XLink CR was published at

The XLink 1.1 LC was published at

The LC review period ended 16 May 2008.

Norm has prepared an updated DoC at 

Paul summarized the open issues at

Norm replied at

ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC accordingly.


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.

Can someone remind us what this is about?  What exactly is the question?
Is it that it should be defaulted but isn't, or is shouldn't be
defaulted but it is?  And on which element?  And in which DTD/XSD?

And what's the answer to the question?


Henry sent an XML Schema for simple-conformant XLink at

ACTION to Norm, John:  Review Henry's candidate basic level 
conformance XSD.

John sent RelaxNG schemas at

Mohamed reviewed the RNG schema and thought it was fine.

ACTION to Norm:  Review John's RelaxNG schemas.


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.

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

10.  XInclude 3rd Edition

See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude

XInclude 2nd Edition is at:

See http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude for
LEIRI-related changes for the 3rd Edition.

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

11.  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.

I believe the email exchange to date--mostly between Simon and 
myself--covers all the open issues on the Assoc Stylesheet spec.

At this point, it is necessary for the rest of the WG to review
the emails and take a stand on things.

Specifically, there are several places where we need to decide
what will be MUSTs and what will be SHOULDs.  Of course, the
rest of the decisions need to be reviewed and approved also.

ACTION to everyone besides Simon and Paul:  Review the latest
xml-stylesheet email at
and followups and indicate preferences for resolutions.


[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/2009May/0010
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 13:51:05 UTC

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