- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:27:00 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
We have an XML Core WG phone call scheduled for Wednesday, April 25, from 08:00-09:00 Pacific time aka 11:00-12:00 Eastern time aka 15:00-16:00 UTC 16:00-17:00 in Ireland and the UK 17:00-18:00 in middle (most of) Europe 20:30-21:30 in most of India on the Zakim W3C Bridge, +1 617 761 6200, passcode 9652#. We also use IRC channel #xmlcore on irc.w3.org:6665 . See the XML Core group page [1] for pointers to current documents and other information. If you have additions to the agenda, please email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon. Please also review our group page's task list [2] for accuracy and completeness and be prepared to amend if necessary and accept it at the beginning of the call. Agenda ====== 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). 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews. 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. 3. C14N The C14N 1.1 Last Call working draft is published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20061220 Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0) WG Note has been published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-C14N-issues-20061220/ Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML Environment WG Note has been published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-DSig-usage-20061220/ We see no reason that C14N 1.1 couldn't be used with XML 1.1. Philippe LeH would like us to make the relationship between C14N 1.1 and XML 1.1 clear in the C14N 1.1 spec. Paul asks why we are trying to define the relationship of C14N 1.1 with XML 1.1 when C14N 1.0 doesn't have a relationship with XML 1.1, and all we were trying to do is fix the problem with xml:id. The WG isn't eager to try to solve these other issues in C14N 1.1. We will plan to put some sort of non-normative note into the CR draft of the C14N 1.1 spec about its relationship (or lack thereof) to XML 1.1. The LC ends April 30. We can start a CR soon after that. We don't know what kind of implementation experience we will get, but we should take it to CR in May. 4. xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs. The (Second Edition) PER has been published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xmlbase-20061220/ It's now waiting for us to say what should happen next--whether we want a Director's call now or not. We need to remember to correct the IP part of the Status section per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2007JanMar/ 0000 Mike Kay thinks the defn of XML Resource Identifier is too vague. We decided to write an RFC to define XML Resource Identifier. The plan is to get this to an RFC and then reference it from XML Base (which we can then take to REC) and others. 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. 5. XLink update. The XLink CR was published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ The latest almost PR-ready XLink draft is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xlink11/ Norm posted a DoC at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/10/xlink11-doc.html Paul wrote a SECOND draft PR request at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Dec/0059 ACTION to Norm: Complete resolution of DoC. ACTION to WG (need volunteer): Update the Implementation Report. ACTION to Norm: Produce PR-ready draft. ACTION to Norm: Produce diff/review version. HOWEVER, the actions here are pending until we get the HRRI RFC since we plan to reference it from XLink. 6. XML 1.0/1.1 4th/2nd Editions published 2006 August 16: Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Edition) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816 Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816 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. 7. Namespaces in XML 1.0/1.1 2nd Editions published 2006 August 16: Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Second Edition) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816 Namespaces in XML 1.1 (Second Edition) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names11-20060816 Richard has recorded Anne's issue/proposed resolution at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/05/proposed-xml-names-errata.html#NPE27 8. XInclude 1.0 Second Edition has been published: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xinclude-20061115/ 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 ACTION to Daniel: Process these as (editorial) errata to the latest XInclude spec. [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/2007Apr/0009
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 17:31:53 UTC