Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2013 October 16

Attendees
---------
Norm
Loren
Henry
Paul
John
Liam

[6 organizations (9 with proxies) present out of 10]

Regrets
-------
David
Jirka, proxy to the chair
Daniel, proxy to the chair
Mohamed, proxy to the chair


Absent organizations
--------------------
NACS (with regrets)
Innovimax (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
Red Hat (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
Univ of Econ, Prague (with regrets, proxy to the chair)


Our next telcon is October 30.

**** NOTE:  On October 30, we will be in the period where
the UK and Europe as ended daylight time but North America
is still observing daylight time.  Given that our telcon
time is based on local time in Boston, callers in the UK
and Europe will need to call in one hour EARLIER on Oct 30.

John at risk.


>
>
> 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).
>

Accepted.


>
> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
>
> Liam raised the question of whether the W3C should submit
> XML Schema 1.1 as an ISO standard; some discussion ensued:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Oct/thread#msg28
>
>

In the above referenced thread, Jirka was against it
(he wasn't on the call).

Norm says no.  Henry says if David is willing to do
the work, fine.  David wasn't on the call.

We're pretty sure XML Schema 1.0 is not an ISO standard.

Loren isn't sure of the benefit of submitting 1.1
given that 1.0 isn't.  Henry says some European
institutions require (or at least prefer) using ISO
standards.

Liam says it's not a lot of work given it is mostly
a rubber stamp process.

Norm said there could be a lot of comments, and John
said there could be a lot of editorial work.

We need to hear from David to see how enthusiastic he
is for pushing this through and doing the editorial work.
Loren offered to do some editorial work.

ACTION to David:  Express your opinion of making XML Schema 1.1
and ISO standard including your willingness to direct the effort.


> 3.  XML Test Suite.
>
> See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-test-suite
>
>
> 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 (now dated 2013 July 8) 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
>
> Henry says that this draft needs positive feedback to proceed
> to the next step.  Henry asks that the XML Core WG send an official
> endorsement, perhaps with some minor suggestions.
>
> Paul reviewed it and made several editorial comments:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Sep/0010
>
> John reviewed it and made several comments:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Sep/0019
>
> Paul sent a draft comment for the WG to review at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Sep/0020
>
> But then Henry discovered a few more holes that he feels he needs to
> fill before we should send in any comment, so this is on hold until
> we hear further from Henry.  For details, see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Oct/0007
> and
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Oct/0023
>
> ACTION to Henry:  Tell us what to do next about 3023-bis.
>

There is a new draft (with diff markup) at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03_diff.html

Comments and resolutions at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/02-comments.html

Please note in particular that a significant addition has been made to
section 3.6 [1], to address the fact that the XML spec. itself defers
to this spec. to define the precedence of charset parameter [in the
http header], BOM and XML encoding declaration [both in the document].

The key new paragraph reads:

  All processors SHOULD treat a BOM (Section 4) as authoritative
  if it is present in an XML MIME entity.  In the absence of a BOM
  (Section 4), all processors SHOULD treat the charset parameter as
  authoritative.  Section 4.3.3 of the [XML] specification does _not_
  make it an error for the charset parameter and the XML encoding
  declaration to be inconsistent.

ACTION to John:  Review the latest 3023-bis draft.


>
> 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).
> On 2013 October 8, we published the XInclude 1.1 CR at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-xinclude-11-20131008/
>
> ACTION to Norm:  Talk to Michael Kay and DV about implementing
> XInclude 1.1.
>

ACTION to Norm continued.



> 7. 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/2013Oct/0008
>
>
>