W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > August 2010

XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2010 August 16

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:13:48 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA9AD605@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

The XML Core WG telcons are every other week.

Our next telcon will be 2010 August 25.

Status and open actions

TAG concern wrt 3023bis, +xml media types and fragids
Henry sent email about this at

3023bis says that the +xml implies that the resource is suitable for 
processing by generic xml processors.  And it says that such xml
processors should handle fragment ids.  Specifically, handling the
fragment identifiers in an rdf+xml document is not something that a 
generic xml processor could do.

The TAG was leaning toward removing the statement from 3023bis that
says that fragid syntax and semantics is something that any generic
xml processor can handle in a +xml resource.

Norm and John (among others) weighed in; see the thread at
Norm's latest (as of July 18) is at

Per Noah's email at
there will be no new status until September.

Shortname referencing XLink versus XLink 1.1
Mohamed asked if xlink should point to xlink11; see

We had a discussion on August 11 where many members expressed
concern with xlink pointing to xlink11, but we were under the
impression that we had little choice, so we sent Ian email
pointing out that "xlink" should now point to the XLink 1.1 spec.

However, Ian response did not match either Henry or my expectations.
The interchange went:

> > In fact, most of us on the WG weren't really thrilled with
> > the suggestion,
> Hmm, then why are we doing it?
> > but Henry explained that this is something
> > you would probably want to do as soon as you noticed--and
> > I remember you doing this with XSL 1.0 and XSL 1.1 over
> > the WG's objection--so I figure it was only proper to let
> > you know about this one.
> I have no urge to do it unless it's useful. Who wants this?
>   _ Ian

So that puts it back to us to decide what we want to do here.

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

We are working toward a PER for AssocSS 2nd Edition.

Our latest public draft is at

The transition request for AssocSS is at

We had an unsuccessful transition call last week.  See

The editors drafted new wording for Section 2 Conformance; see

Paul sent email to Daniel Glazman and TimBL requesting comment at
and there was no response.

Liam talked to TimBL July 1 and sent some sketchy email at
explaining what to do next.

At our telcon of July 28, after some discussion and a vote,
the WG agreed to add the following paragraph verbatim 
as a second paragraph to the Note in section 2:

 At the time of edition 1 (1999) the meaning of these
 p-attributes was not well specified, and at the time
 of edition 2 (2010) there is low interoperability in
 the values between implementations; future work may
 clarify this.

ACTION to Henry:  Update the 20 April 2010 draft PER of 
AssocSS as follows:

1.  Add the above quoted paragraph verbatim as a second
    paragraph to the Note in section 2.

2.  Change the pub dates (in the subtitle, this version
    URL [both published and the href], and anywhere else
    as necessary) to [something reasonable].

3.  Change the end review date in the SotD to [something].

Then regenerate both the HTML and the diff-marked HTML.

ACTION to Liam (once there is an updated draft):  Do whatever 
is necessary to get AssocSS out as PER.

XML Model

XML Model is being balloted by SC34 until the ? of August.
In the middle of September SC34 will have a face-to-face meeting
where they will discuss comments received during the ballot.

Jirka will bring SC34 comments, concerns, and proposed resolutions
back to XML Core WG in the second half of September.
Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 14:14:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:42 UTC