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

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2014 October 15

From: Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:02:22 -0500
Message-ID: <543E9A8E.8070806@paulgrosso.name>
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org

Attendees
---------
   Loren
   Norm
   Paul
   Henry on IRC
   David
   Jirka

[6 organizations (8 with proxies) present out of 10]

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


Absent organizations
--------------------
W3C
John Cowan
Red Hat (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
Innovimax (with regrets, proxy to the chair)

Our next telcon was scheduled for October 29 but that
is in the middle of the TPAC week so we have CANCELLED it.

Therefore, our next telcon is scheduled for November 12.



> 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.
>
> 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.
>

ACTION to John and Henry continued.

> ----
>
> 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.
>

ACTION to Henry continued.

>
> 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 the WG:  Review David's table so that we can
> discuss this at our next telcon.

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.
>

ACTION to Loren continued.

> 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.
>

ACTION to Henry continued.

-------

Norm drafted an updated XML Schema Namespace document at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2014/10/xmlschema-namespace.html

The WG has CONSENSUS to add today's date to the document,
remove the diff markup, and ask Liam to put this at
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema

ACTION to Norm:  Ask Liam to update the XML Schema namespace document.

>
> 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.

ACTION to Norm continued.


> 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.
>

ACTION to Norm continued.

> 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/0001
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 16:02:52 UTC

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