W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2014

Re: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2014 November 12

From: Loren Cahlander <loren.cahlander@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:28:02 -0500
Cc: core <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B47C5872-E2D2-4AD7-9A68-D53E9DB99522@gmail.com>
To: Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>
My regrets.  I just lost my room where I was going to make the call.

My proxy to the chair.

Loren

Sent from my iPad

> On Nov 10, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name> wrote:
> 
> We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, 
> November 12, from 
>          08:30-09:00 Pacific time aka 
>          11:30-12:00 Eastern time aka 
>          15:30-16:00 UTC 
>          16:30-17:00 in Ireland and the UK
>          17:30-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe
> on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#. 
> We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 . 
> 
> 
> See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents 
> and other information.  If you have additions to the agenda, please 
> email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon. 
> 
> Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and 
> completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it 
> at the beginning of the call. 
> 
> 
> 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). 
> 
> 
> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews. 
> 
> XML Potential Errata
> --------------------
> Comment that “or by the Byte Order Mark” is lacking in section 4.3.3:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2013OctDec/0002
> 
> Comment that an entity cannot “begin” with a BOM as suggested in section 4.3.3:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2013OctDec/0003
> 
> ACTION to John and Henry:  Review and comment on the above two comments
> on the discussion of BOMs in section 4.3.3 of the XML spec.
> 
> ----
> 
> Comment about documents with an "empty DTD":
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Jan/thread#msg8
> and
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014JanMar/
> 
> Henry suggests we could probably make the XML spec clearer here;
> see also his comments at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014JanMar/0004
> 
> Paul sent the WG response at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014JanMar/0005
> and there was more back from the commentor at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014JanMar/
> 
> ACTION to Henry: Read the post-February 6 email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014JanMar/
> and let us know what you think we should do.
> 
> 
> Submitting XML Schema 1.1 to ISO
> --------------------------------
> See also
> https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-schema
> 
> We have decided we will first publish XML Schema 1.1 2E (with
> approved errata).  After that, we would send XML Schema 1.1 2E
> (only) to ISO.
> 
> Loren has offered to do the editorial duties, and David
> talked to CMSMCQ about getting some more help in the details.
> 
> It looks like there are 3 bugs for Structures, none for Datatypes,
> but after checking with Michael, he found
> https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.errata-2012.html
> which shows 8 errata items whereas bugzilla shows only 3.
> 
> We discussed
> https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.errata-2012.html
> 
> Henry figures we can just publish this document.
> 
> Loren believes the latest document includes everything,
> so the next step is to push it through the tool chain,
> but that make take help from Henry or Michael.  Loren
> will try to contact Michael again.
> 
> We will need a diff (or list of changes) and a test suite.
> Loren says the diff is already available.
> 
> We need to see if any of the changes are normative.
> It appears that none of the changes require a chance
> in the test suite.
> 
> David has produced a table outlining his thoughts on the
> normativity of the various changes at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Oct/0003
> though the formatting there doesn't appear to work well.
> You can view the table better at
> https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2014/xschema11.html
> 
> ACTION to David and Liam:  Discuss the changes we are
> making to the XML Schema spec and determine what our
> next step should be in terms of pushing this through
> to a new edition.
> 
> ACTION to Loren:  Check that he can run the build.
> 
> Potential Erratum to Namespaces
> -------------------------------
> CMSMcQ raised a potential erratum against Namespaces at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2014Sep/0000
> with WG discussion started at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Sep/0019
> 
> He says that our latest wording in the definition of 'namespace name'
> (section 2.1) appears to say that an element with no namespace binding
> in scope is in no namespace as opposed to saying its namespace is
> unknown (thereby leaving the possibility that its namespace
> information may be determined by some other methods).
> 
> Norm, Paul, and Henry posted some thoughts on this, and none
> of us feel that the current wording is necessarily bad enough
> to be worth any change.  In particular, Norm doesn't agree with
> what Michael thinks should be the case.  Henry points out that
> HTML5 does "make use of" defining namespaces without the
> namespace spec mechanism.
> 
> Henry had some more (private) exchanges with Michael, and
> Henry will summarize the discussion for the WG.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Summarize and provide current status of
> the discussion of this namespace potential erratum.
> 
> 
> 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.  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/
> 
> Norm reports that Michael Kay's code just accesses Xerces code, 
> so Norm might have to work with Xerces. 
> 
> DV reports that he is busy and so cannot commit to a deadline
> for adding XInclude 1.1 support to libxml.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Continue to work toward getting XInclude 1.1
> implementations and document them in our implementation report.
> 
> Note also the desire for another test case for the XInclude test suite per
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Apr/0000
> Norm may see if he knows anyone still working on Xerces.
> 
> Norm is planning to write a SAX filter to implement XInclude 1.1.
> He believes this will lead to a way for using XInclude 1.1 with
> Saxon's XSLT processor and most any other Java based tool.
> 
> Norm raised an issue at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Sep/0004
> pointing out a problem copying the xml:base attribute 
> when the xi:xinclude element itself has an xml:base attribute.
> After WG discussion, we decided we need to be clearer in general 
> about how xml:id, xml:lang, and xml:base are handled when they occur
> on the xi:include element including how they get their semantics.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Write a proposal for how to address this problem.
> 
> 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/2014Oct/0015
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 16:28:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:48 UTC