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

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

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:32:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3021183B847@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 December 2.

To make this report more manageable, I have deleted several
topics on which the status has not changed in the last couple
months and on which I don't expect the status to change soon.
These topics remain in our agenda/minutes.

Status and open actions

SC 34/WG 1 use of xml-model PI
SC 34/WG1 requested to be able to use xml-model for a PI target.

It has been reported that there would be problems 
with JTC1 writing the spec and then having W3C publish it.  One 
solution would be for us to write the spec (WG Note or Rec?) and 
then ISO would reference it.

Henry reports that IJ would be happy to see the WG produce a Note.

Paul wants the WG Note to be the complete spec so that someone
can reference it.

Paul wants to draft the note first as a starting point from which
ISO can write their spec--in coordination with us and as we redraft
our Note to keep it in sync--and then when they have a final spec,
we will finalize our Note with a reference to the ISO spec.

A new proposed draft is at

Paul sent comments on this latest draft at
They were mostly editorial, but Paul did request the addition of a para:

 Because applications are not required to support schemes other
 than the 'element' scheme, use of other schemes can reduce
 universal interoperability; such use SHOULD be carefully
 considered in each case.

Henry is okay with that addition.

Paul sent email to Chris at
to request confirmation that Chris has seen these comments and
plans to incorporate them.  No response to date.

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

NS 1.0 3rd Ed PER is at
and the review was generally successful.  We had a few comments
that we addressed; the DoC is at
and the Rec-ready document is at

The one outstanding issue from Bjoern remains at

The wording in question was in 2nd Ed, so we will file a PE
and consider fixing it in the 4th Ed.

ACTION to Henry:  Re-tell Bjoern our plan to consider this in an
erratum but not change it in this 3rd Ed.

ACTION to Henry:  Record Bjoern's comment as a PE against NS 1.0.

ACTION to Henry:  Take NS 1.0 3rd Ed to Rec.

WG Consensus to take NS 1.0 3rd Ed to Rec despite the one outstanding

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

Norm has prepared an updated DoC at 

Paul summarized the open issues at

Norm replied at

ACTION to Norm:  Update the DoC accordingly.

The latest editor's draft (of the PR) is at
and a diff-with-the-last-CR draft is at

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 has updated the DTDs and sent things to Norm. 

ACTION to Norm:  Update the draft with the correct DTD, XSD, and RNC.

We plan to skip CR and going directly to PR.

Paul drafted a PR transition request at

Norm created an updated IR at

ACTION to Norm:  Adding a mention of the test suite at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/03/xlink11-tests to the IR.

ACTION to Norm:  Create a diff between 1.0 and the 1.1 PR ready draft.

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

The latest editor's draft of AssocSS 1.0 2nd Edition is at

Paul sent "remaining issues" email at
with the following issues (and "resolutions" such as they are from
our last telcon):

more restrictive location for xml-stylesheet PIs
We probably need to allow, but discourage, x-s PIs in the
internal and external subsets.

ACTION to Henry:  Suggest some actual wording.

constraints on pseudo-attribute values
Paul is concerned that the document constraints on the values 
of the pseudo-attributes (1) were not what we decided when
discussing issues earlier and (2) are in some cases more
restrictive than what the 1st edition requires (even by
reference to HTML4).

Henry isn't sure about the whole processor/document dicotomy
on constraints.  (For the record, Paul didn't expect that
dicotomy either and thought we'd just stick to constraints
on processors, but I think I can live with constraints on
documents as long as we can agree on those constraints.)

ACTION to Henry:  Either suggest something or accept the
current wording.

Note on same document reference from the PI
The 1st Ed has a note that is no longer in the draft 2nd Ed.
Paul wondered if we should include it, and Henry did think so.

ACTION to the editors:  Re-insert the note with the reference
to 2396 update to 3986.

Paul still hates acknowledgement sections and would like to
see it deleted.  Simon wants it.  No one else has expressed
an opinion, and perhaps no one else cares.

I note that the Editors are listed as Simon and Henry, but
not James.  It has been customary to include editors of
previous editions and add names to later editions.  I suggest
that we put back James' name as the first entry in the list
of editors.

ACTION to the editors:  Re-insert James' name as an editor.

Given that there are no Acknowledgements in the 1st Edition,
I submit that the status quo for this spec is for there to
be no Acknowledgements section.  Therefore, if no one else
expresses an opinion, there will be no Acknowledgements.  
If we get a majority of WG members expressing a preference
for adding an Acknowledgements section, we will do so.
Received on Monday, 23 November 2009 15:33:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:41 UTC