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

XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2009 June 9

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:22:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020FE29E47@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 June 17.


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 decided to add a note; Paul sent draft wording for an erratum at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0019

I18N came back with some modifications at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0023

JohnC was okay with the I18N proposal.

Paul made a reply at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009May/0025

Liam suggested a minor change at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jun/0005
changing an "is" to a (non-rfc2119) "may", and, though a bit verbose, 
the WG decided to put that wording into countdown.  Later Simon
questioned the wisdown of a non-rfc2119 may, and Paul (who wasn't
at the previous telcon) wonders about that too, so with the chair's
perogative, Paul suggests that the following wording (may -> can;
we're talking about logical possibilities, not permissions) is in 
countdown:

<added-note>
_Unicode_ (rule C06) says that canonically equivalent sequences of
characters ought to be treated as identical. However, XML _parsed
entities_ (including _document entities_) that are canonically
equivalent according to Unicode but which use distinct code point
(character) sequences are considered distinct by XML processors.
Therefore, all XML parsed entities SHOULD be created in a "fully
normalized" form per _[CharMod-Norm]_. Otherwise the user might
unknowingly create canonically equivalent but unequal sequences that
appear identical to the user but which are treated as distinct by XML
processors.

A document can still be well-formed, even if it is not in a normalized
form. XML processors MAY verify that the document being processed is in
a fully-normalized form and report to the application whether it is or
not.
</added-note>

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.


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.

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.

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.

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

ACTION to Norm, Mohamed:  Review John's RelaxNG schemas.

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

Simon has requested we consider revisions; see his email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0002
and his suggested draft at
http://simon.html5.org/specs/xml-stylesheet5

See also Simon's email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0014
outlining various issues.

Paul sent email giving Arbortext's behavior and other comments at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0022

Henry sent email giving Saxon behavior in various erroneous cases at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0025

Paul sent email with suggested resolutions at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0029
and there has been some follow-up email.

Simon and Paul generally agreed on the resolutions except that
Simon would prefer that some SHOULDs become MUSTs.  We need to
have other WG members review the latest email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0029
and followups and weigh in on the issues.

ACTION to everyone besides Simon and Paul (and accepted by Henry
and Norm):  Review the latest xml-stylesheet email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0029
and followups and indicate preferences for resolutions.
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 14:23:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 9 June 2009 14:23:56 GMT