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

XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2009 June 23

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:12:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30210059C9B@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 1.


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.


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.

There was some email discussion at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jun/thread.ht
ml#msg27

Henry finds the DTD/RelaxNG/XSD fragments throughout the spec unhelpful 
and would like to remove them (leaving them only in the appendices).

There was also discussion about just what simple conformance is:
does it require href or not? For example, if something has
xlink:type="simple" but no href, it is still a simple link.
See also
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xlink11-20080331/#app-reqs-simple
But then the definition of simple link at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xlink11-20080331/#simple-links
says it associates exactly two resources, and how can it do that
without an href attribute?  But 4.1 does say that href is optional
in a simple link.

We had Norm-less consensus to define simple conformance to
require href.

ACTION to Henry: Modify the simple conformance XSD to make href
required.

ACTION to John: Modify the simple conformance RelexNG to make href
required.

ACTION to Norm: Update the prose in the spec to redefine simple
conformance to require href.  For example:
"...with respect to simple links.  In other words, elements..." -> 
"...with respect to simple links with an explicit xlink:href assignment.
 In other words, all and only elements..."

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

The latest issues document is at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2009/06/assocss-issues.htm

ACTION to WG members:  Send to the list email with your preferences
for the various issues as detailed in the above issues document.
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 14:13:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 June 2009 14:13:12 GMT