XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2016 April 18

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

Our next telcon is scheduled for April 27.


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

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/

Norm has an implementation in XML Calabash.
He has also implemented XInclude 1.1 in MarkLogic.

Jirka reports that there is another XInclude 1.1 implementation
in XML Mind XML Editor.  See:
http://www.xmlmind.com/xmleditor/changes.html#v6.2.0

Norm has made some updates to the test suite per
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2016Mar/thread#msg4

Norm has augmented the test suite some more:
https://github.com/w3c/xinclude/tree/testsuite11

ACTION to Norm:  Send email about the test suite to those who
should be using it to test their implementations.

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

ACTION to Norm:  Add another test case to the test suite per
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2014Apr/0000

ACTION to Jirka:  Run the XML Mind XML Editor through the new test suite.

ACTION to Norm:  (Continue to) run the test suite through Calabash and MarkLogic.

ACTION to Norm:  Update the implementation report.

---

Henry pointed out that Section 4.4 references RFC 3023
which has been superseded by RFC 7303 and sent email with
suggested rewording at
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2016Feb/0003

Norm implemented this at
https://ndw.github.io/xinclude/xinclude/xinclude11/head/diffcr.html#text-included-items
as well as adding an example that shows the xinclude
encoding attribute.

---

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,
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.

---

In working on the test suite and spec, Norm sent several emails
that require WG input.  I have made a comment on the first two
already, and I am taking the chair's prerogative to assign:

ACTION to Henry, John:  Respond to Norms's emails on XInclude, to wit:

* Proposed changes to XInlude test suite
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2016Apr/thread.html#msg7

* Clarify that fragid support is optional when parse=text
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2016Apr/thread.html#msg8
  
* Language fixup and the expected results of test eduni-3
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2016Apr/thread.html#msg13

* Rework XInclude tests to use xml:id attributes?
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2016Apr/thread.html#msg14


paul