W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > December 2015

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2015 December 9

From: Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 10:39:50 -0600
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56685956.5080700@paulgrosso.name>

Attendees
---------
Henry
Paul
Jirka


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

Regrets
-------
David, proxy to the chair
Norm, proxy to the chair
Mohamed, proxy to the chair
Liam

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

Our next telcon is scheduled for December 23.

Henry gives regrets.  It may not make sense to try to have
a call.  Paul will send out either an agenda or a status
report on the 21st.

> 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.
>
> ----
>
> 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.
>
> We still need to:  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.
>
> ACTION to David: Consider how to further progress on this work item.
>
>
> 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 2015 June 30, we published our second XInclude 1.1 CR at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/CR-xinclude-11-20150630/
>
> This CR period runs through the end of August.
>
> 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 has an implementation in XML Calabash.
> He has also implemented XInclude 1.1 in MarkLogic.
> Henry has started working on extending Richard's XInclude 1.0
> implementation to do XInclude 1.1.
> ACTION to Henry: Report on progress on extending Richard's
> XInclude 1.0 implementation.

Henry says he's made some progress and expects to do more.

Henry points out that the spec refers to RFC 3023 wrt
encoding of text.  He suggests we review this.

ACTION to Henry:  Send email to the WG list outlining
this issue about encoding of text.


>
> ACTION to Norm:  Update the implementation report and test suite.
>

Paul raised the question of whether the spec requires
the support for RFC 5147.  It isn't mentioned under
Application Conformance, but the description of fragid,
it says "for text processing, [the fragid value] is
interpreted as a [IETF RFC 5147] fragment identifier"
and it doesn't discuss what to do if an implementation
doesn't support that.

Norm suggests that we can't force implementations to
support it and that we should clarify the spec to say
that lack of support for fragid when parse=text
should be a recoverable error.

Henry and Paul agree with that suggestion.

ACTION to Norm:  Update the spec to clarify that lack
of support for fragid when parse=text should be a
recoverable error.

>
> 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] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2015Sep/0014
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2015 16:45:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 9 December 2015 16:45:29 UTC