- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:15:53 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
The XML Core WG telcons are every other week. Our next telcon will be April 25. Status and open actions ======================= XML clarification ----------------- Norm sent email about < in attribute values at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0006 Richard replied at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0007 Henry doesn't see why Richard's explanation makes the problem go away. Glenn explains it, but Henry points out that more explanation would be useful--at least in the test, and maybe in the spec. Glenn suggested putting something in the table near the end (4.4) if we put anything in the spec. Henry suggests adding an example such as this case to Appendix D (in XML 1.0 4th Ed). ACTION to Glenn: Suggest some wording/example to add to the spec that covers the "< in attribute value" issue (actually, internal entity in attributes). schema infoset fix-ups ---------------------- Michael SMcQ sent email on the subject of schema infoset fix-ups at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0002 ACTION to Henry: Look at CMSMCQ's email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Apr/0002 and let us know if there is anything the XML Core WG should do/say about this. HRRI RFC -------- Norm's latest draft (as of 2007 April 10) is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/03/xmlresourceid/ CONSENSUS to publish as an ID. ACTION to Norm: Request publication of our draft as an ID. XML 1.0/1.1 ----------- ACTION to Francois: Update the PE document per previous telcons' decisions. On PE 157, John sent email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Oct/0036 with his suggested response and a question for the WG: > Should we add specific references to UTF-16BE, UTF-16LE, CESU-8, > etc. etc. to 4.3.3? If so, we might as well remove "We consider the > first case first" from Appendix F; it's more than obvious. We agreed that, according to the spec, such a character is not a BOM. We have decided that John's email should be sent to the commentor as a response (done, see [11]), and that the only change resulting from this PE are some editorial changes as outlined in John's email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0056 ACTION to Francois: Update the PE document with John's editorial changes as the proposed resolution to PE 157. [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2006OctDec/0010 ---- John sent email about a new PE related to UTF-8 BOM at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0067 proposing the following language as a new paragraph in 4.3.3 for both XML 1.0 and XML 1.1: If the replacement text of an external entity is to begin with the character U+FEFF, and no text declaration is present, then a Byte Order Mark MUST be present, whether the entity is encoded in UTF-8 or UTF-16. ACTION to Francois: Add a new PE per John's comments above and make some suggested resolution wording. XInclude -------- We got a comment about the XInclude spec at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0013 Paul suggested some specific wording to clarify the xi:fallback at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0023 Henry suggested wording to clarify xml:lang fixup at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jan/0022 We had CONSENSUS to make these editorial errata. ACTION to Daniel: Process these as (editorial) errata to the latest XInclude spec.
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 22:16:12 UTC