W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > June 2013

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2013 June 12

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:45:24 -0500
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2zjuve3jf.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name> writes:
> We had an XML Core WG phone call on Wednesday, June 12.

Present: Norm (with 1 proxy), Henry, Jirka
Regrets: Paul, Liam

> Agenda
> ======
> 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).

Accept this agenda?


Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013May/0008


> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.

As XML-related WGs close down, Henry wonders how many of the legacy
specs we're going to get asked to take on.

With respect to the XML Schema SCUDs spec, Henry suggests that if
Sandy Gao and Mary Holstege were willing to join the Core WG, he'd
actually be interested in carrying that forward to REC. As things
currently stand, the Schema WG intends to publish it simply as a Note.

ACTION: Paul to put this question on the agenda for next time when
Liam is present.

> XML Activity AC Review
> ----------------------
> The XML Activity AC review was open through April 26.
> To date, we haven't heard from W3M, but we expect to
> be rechartered.
> It has been suggested that the XML Normalization spec
> from XML Security WG--presently an editor's draft at
> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xml-norm/Overview.html
> --be added to our charter.
> We don't feel that we would have the time, energy, or
> expertise if none of the existing editors join the WG.
> Liam plans to suggest to W3M that we add discussion of
> XML Normalization to our charter but not yet put it on
> the Rec track for now.  If we get the necessary participants
> and we feel we have the ability to produce a Rec, we will
> revise our charter so to do.

Pending until Liam is present.

> xmlspec.xsl and diffspec.xsl
> ----------------------------
> Paul sent email about this at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Nov/0014
> ACTION to Norm:  Come up with (and implement) a plan to
> reorganize xmlspec.xsl and diffspec.xsl to "do the right thing."


> DOM4
> ----
> Henry reported that DOM4 has removed (or deprecated) access to the
> XML Declaration. Our Infoset spec says that standalone, version,
> and the encoding are part of the information content of an XML
> document.
> Henry and Paul think the XML Core WG should send an email
> to the Web Applications Working Group (public-webapps@w3.org)
> to reinstate the parts of the xml decl that are in the Infoset.
> Henry drafted a potential comment at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Feb/0023
> John filed some thoughts to the contrary at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Feb/0026
> Henry figures we should discuss this some more.
> Norm is having a hard time caring about all this.
> Henry reached out to the webapps working group at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Apr/0009
> to try to collect some more data on this issue.
> Paul wonders what the status of this item is.  Is there an
> outstanding action item?  Should it be removed from our agenda?

Henry: Given that there's no agreement in this WG about it, and I
don't feel strongly enough to argue with John about it, I think we can
decide not to do anything about it.

Norm: Works for me.

Norm will suggest to Paul that we simply remove this item.

> 3.  XML Test Suite.
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-test-suite
> ACTION to Henry:  Construct a test case for the XML test suite
> issues raised by Frans Englich:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-testsuite/2007Mar/


> 4.  LEIRIs--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#leiri
> We have planned to issue the following spec editions referencing
> LEIRIs (and any outstanding errata):
> * XML 1.0 6th Edition (John to be editor)
> * XML 1.1 3rd Edition (John to be editor)
> * XInclude 3rd Edition (Paul to be editor)
> but all this is on hold awaiting resolution of IRIbis.
> 5.  XML Media types (3023bis)
> Henry is co-editor.  The latest draft is at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes/
> with a diff version at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-01_diff.html
> A DoC is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/00-comments.html
> ACTION to Paul and others:  Read and comment on the latest 3023bis.

Norm and Paul have commented. Anyone else?

> 6.  XInclude 1.1--see http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xinclude
> On 2012 February 14, we published
> XInclude 1.1 Requirement and Use Cases
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude-11-requirements/
> On 9 October 2012, we published our FPWD of XInclude 1.1 at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/WD-xinclude-11-20121009/
> On 15 January 2013, we published our (first) Last Call of
> XInclude 1.1 at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-xinclude-11-20130115/
> and Paul sent the transition announcement at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Jan/0012
> (also cc-ing the chairs mailing list).
> Norm already has an implementation.
> ACTION to Norm:  Create an Implementation Report document
> for XInclude 1.1.


> Norm is maintaining a DoC at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2013/05/xinclude-11-lc-doc/
> We have less than a half dozen comments, none of them
> appearing difficult/substantial.  We have charged the
> editor with producing a new editor's draft addressing
> the comments.
> ACTION to Norm:  Create a new draft in time for review
> at the June 26 telcon.  Have a diff version diffed against
> the previously published (LC) XInclude 1.1 draft.  Put
> both in public (www.w3.org/XML/Group/2013/) space.


> Once the WG has a chance to see the new draft, we will
> send email to the commentors asking for their approval
> of our disposition.  Then...
> ACTION to Norm:  Augment the DoC with dispositions and
> acceptances.


> Assuming we decide there were no substantive changes, we
> will plan to publish the next version as a CR.
> Liam reminds us we also need a test suite.
> 6. MicroXML
> MicroXML is not in our new charter, but we can discuss it.
> We will leave this as an ongoing item in our standing agenda.
> paul
> [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/2013May/0008

Any other business?

None heard.


Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 15:45:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:45 UTC