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

XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2015 December 14

From: Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:17:08 -0600
To: core <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <566EEB84.6080406@paulgrosso.name>

The XML Core WG telcons are scheduled for every other week.

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.


Status and open actions
=======================

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.

---

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.


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.

ACTION to Loren and David: Produce a publication-ready version
of XML Schema 1.1 2E incorporating the approved errata.

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. Liam says we don't need a test suite if
there are no substantive changes.

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.

XInclude 1.1
------------
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 ran minimally through the end of August; at this
time we continue to wait for implementations.

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.

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

Henry has started working on extending Richard's XInclude 1.0
implementation to do XInclude 1.1.  Henry says he's made some
progress and expects to do more.

Henry points out that Section 4.4 [11] references RFC 3023
which has been superseded by RFC 7303 [12].  The 7303 rules
for determining encoding of XML documents are slightly
different from the 3023 ones, and might even be a bit easier to
implement.  He doesn't think you can get away from starting to
read at least some documents twice, but he'd like to discuss
this on our next call.
[11]http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude-11/#text-included-items
[12]https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7303

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.
Received on Monday, 14 December 2015 16:22:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 14 December 2015 16:22:41 UTC