Re: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2015 April 29

On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 10:41 -0500, Paul Grosso wrote:
> Attendees
> ---------
> Henry
> Norm
> Paul
> Jirka
> Liam (only on IRC)
I'd sent regrets, am at a conference (or I thought i'd sent regrets).

> 
> [5 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 9]
> 
> Regrets
> -------
> David, proxy to the chair
> Mohamed, proxy to the chair
> 
> Absent organizations
> --------------------
> Greatlinkup
> John Cowan
> NACS (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
> Innovimax (with regrets, proxy to the chair)
> 
> 
> Our next telcon is scheduled for May 13.
> 
> However, if there has been no progress or request for a telcon by 
> Monday the 11th, Paul will send out a status report instead of an 
> agenda and the telcon will be cancelled.
> 
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> > TPAC 26-30 October 2015 in Sapporo, Japan
> > -----------------------------------------
> > See http://www.w3.org/2015/11/TPAC/
> > 
> > Norm hopes to be there; Liam and David plan to be there.
> > 
> > Paul, John, Henry, Loren, Jirka, Moz won't be there.
> > 
> > Paul indicated that we would plan to have a (small) meeting there, 
> > though it will be up to Norm, Liam, and David to arrange.
> 
> So noted.
> 
> It may be the case that Norm won't be able to come
> in which case there wouldn't be any official meeting.
> 
> > 
> > -----
> > 
> > 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/
> > 
> > Henry referenced Paul's email at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014JanMar/0010 
> > especially Paul's suggestion in point 4, though Henry wasn't
> > sure he agreed with the suggestion.
> > 
> > ACTION to Henry:  Post some suggestion(s) to the list about
> > how to address: Comment about documents with an "empty DTD".
> > 
> > ----
> > 
> > Question about normalization checking in XML 1.1
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > John Cowan forwarded an email for us to consider at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Dec/0026 
> > which I've also forwarded to the xml-editor list at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2014OctDec/0000 for 
> > official/archive purposes.
> > 
> > Paul wrote some comments in email at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Dec/0028
> > 
> > Henry checked with Richard who agrees it's a bug, though how
> > to fix it isn't obvious. Probably the only candidates for not
> > being normalized are (internal and external) doctypes per email at 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2015Jan/0004
> > 
> > ACTION to Norm and Henry: Review the email about normalization 
> > checking in XML 1.1 and suggest an appropriate corrigendum.
> > 
> > ----
> > 
> > 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. 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.
> > 
> > We will need a diff (or list of changes).
> > Loren says the diff is already available.
> > 
> > We needed to consider whether any of the changes are normative 
> > and/or require a change to the test suite.  After some discussion, 
> > we decided we should just create a PER.
> > 
> > ACTION to Loren:  Create the PER, i.e., XML Schema 1.1 Second 
> > Edition, and post (e.g., at 
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2014/12/xschema11.html) for the WG to 
> > review (talk to Paul if you need help so posting).
> > 
> > 
> > 4.  XML Test Suite.
> > 
> > See also http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#xml-test-suite
> > 
> > 
> > 5. 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.
> > 
> > 
> > 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/
> > 
> > We have published (another) Last Call 2014 December 16 at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-xinclude-11-20141216/
> > 
> > The Last Call period ended January 17.  There were no comments.
> > 
> > On the Feb 4 telcon, the WG had CONSENSUS to take XInclude 1.1 to 
> > CR.
> > 
> > Paul drafted a Transition Request (including SOTD wording) at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2015Feb/0010 
> > Liam said Paul should send it to Ralph and PLH (not Philipp 
> > Hoschka). Liam said we might not need a telcon.
> > 
> > Norm filed an issue on the Xerces issue tracker to support 
> > XInclude 1.1; he has heard there is a possibility that the Xerces 
> > folks would do it.
> > 
> > Jirka has implemented a subset of an XInclude processor
> > in XSLT; it deals mainly with the new copy-attributes feature.
> > 
> > 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 announces that he has one conforming implementation,
> > the one in XML Calabash, and he is working on another.
> > 
> > ACTION to Norm:  Update the implementation report and test suite.
> > 
> > ACTION to Norm:  Create the pub-ready CR taking into account the 
> > wording/URLs in Paul's draft Transition Request (but make the
> > proposed pubdate [and corresponding URLs] some reasonable future 
> > date).
> > 
> > 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/2015Apr/0009
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >

Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 16:00:38 UTC